Great Fictional World War III book (China & allies VS US & allies)

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Vlad Plasmius said:

Which was exactly the intent of the Chinese army. They wanted it to look like they had overwhelming numbers, leading to poor estimates to the actual size of their forces. In reality, their numbers were about the same as U.N. forces.

That, however, was 50 years ago when China had just come off of a civil war and lacked the training and technology they have now.

Click to expand...

The Chinese didn't really use human wave tactics. Their tactics would better be described as asymmetric. They moved overland rather than on roads which allowed them to find gaps in American lines and avoid air interdiction. They communicated with bugles and other non-conventional means which made any attempts to intercept communications impossible. And most importantly they relied heavily on inflitration prior to attack which made even well defended postions unteneable. But of course they were very willing to accept appalling casualties if necessary. I would say that they were more like water than a wave. They found the weak spots, flowed forward and around enemy strongpoints, and when necessary eroded the enemy with brute force.

All that refers to the action just after the Chinese entered the war and forced the Americans to retreat out of North Korea. The inflicted argueably the worst defeat on the US Army in its history, and forced it into its longest retreat. That is too often forgotten in the United States.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

That is too often forgotten in the United States.

Click to expand...

Much like the war itself. Maybe many Americans are just too ashamed that the Chinese kicked our keisters so they push the war out of their mind. For how much the Chinese are demeaned, they happen to have beat us around when they weren't even a tenth as advanced as us.

But I digress.

Even in the Korean War the Chinese displayed superb tactics and didn't resort to the wave attacks depicted in Jeff's book. Even in 2004 that was apparent enough.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Finn McCool said:

But of course they were very willing to accept appalling casualties if necessary. I would say that they were more like water than a wave. They found the weak spots, flowed forward and around enemy strongpoints, and when necessary eroded the enemy with brute force.

Click to expand...

Vlad Plasmius said:

they happen to have beat us around like a when they weren't even a tenth as advanced as us.

Even in the Korean War the Chinese displayed superb tactics and didn't resort to the wave attacks depicted in Jeff's book. Even in 2004 that was apparent enough.

Click to expand...

First of all, the Chinese did attack in overwhelming numbers at severaal key places when they initially pushed the US forces out of North Korea.

To describe their offensive and the retreat in the face of those numbers, particularly at Chosin Reservoir, as them pushing US forces around like a "cheap whore" is fairly offensive IMHO to those who fought and died there and not representative at all of what happened. In that particular exchange, the US forces traded one divisions for five or six of the Chinese...I would not call that being treated like a cheap whore...I would call it more of a malling of the attacking forces.

One thing I wil say, and that I make clear in the book. In North Korea, the Chinese won. Even though they took the appalling losses that Finn describes, they were willing to take them to gain the ground. That is a key point that is lost on both US citizens and many people within the US military today, some of whom I have had rather sharp exchanges with over the years on this very point.

I had one Captain in the US Navy actually tell me that we technically "won" against the Chinese. I simply asked him, in that case, who was standing on the ground in North Korea at the end of the day...ground that we had occupied before the Chinese attacked. The answer was clear.

It is that tactic that I describe in the book, along with the efficient use of those forces coupled with the technology they develop in the books. Call it wave attacks if you wish, that was not the intent. The intent was to describe the type of willingness to use both the technology and the number when appropriate to gain ground...and in the books, they do, to a huge extent.

Anyhow, I believe, in terms of the book, we are actually saying pretty much the same thing and debating how a single word (wave) is applied to it.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

To describe their offensive and the retreat in the face of those numbers, particularly at Chosin Reservoir, as them pushing US forces around like a "cheap whore" is fairly offensive IMHO to those who fought and died there and not representative at all of what happened. In that particular exchange, the US forces traded one divisions for five or six of the Chinese...I would not call that being treated like a cheap whore...I would call it more of a malling of the attacking forces.

Click to expand...

Considering we had a technologically superior and combat-hardened force and were forced into the longest retreat in history by a nation other than the "Evil Empire" of the Soviets and that force doing it happened to be not much greater in overall numbers, yes it was very much like being treated like a cheap whore.

Comparing that military to the one the Chinese have today you now have a military that can provide extensive air and naval support supported by armor and artillery.

Their training and tactics have developed far more over that time, yet you have them using wave attacks.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Hi Jeff,

Can I say this. I know someone else have said it as well. Can we back off Jeff for a little bit ( sorry Vlad!).

Jeff wrote a book. And it's fiction. You have a choice to read it or not. And you're entitled to your own opinion or counter-facts if researched properly. But get this . His book is meant to be a good read and not to satisfy all of your high standards in terms of factual (perceived or otherwise) accuracy. And to challenge him on every single word, and syntax is getting a bit tiresome (for me at least). I read it somewhere as well about actually there being very few "wave" attacks (Wikepedia I think but who cares!). The book has it so there are (fiction remember?). Nuff said.

Digressing a bit from the current dicussion, Jeff can you comment on the article I posted on Page 9 by Victor N. Corpus a Brigadier General from the Philippine Armed Forces (in a way related to your book with supercavitating torpedoes SHKVAL or "Squall". e.t.c)? It's a bit long I know, but he seems to believe in the PLA's very high capability to cause a lot of damage to an attacking force such as a possible US strike with carrier battle groups asymmetrically and also directly.


Michael

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Vlad Plasmius said:

Considering we had a technologically superior and combat-hardened force and were forced into the longest retreat in history ... yes it was very much like being treated like a cheap whore.

Comparing that military to the one the Chinese have today you now have a military that can provide extensive air and naval support supported by armor and artillery.

Their training and tactics have developed far more over that time, yet you have them using wave attacks.

Click to expand...

Well, we disagree as regards Korea. The Chinese were vastly numerically superior at the points of attack. US forces caught in those positions fought strongly and mauled the attackers, who took apalling casualties...but were forced to retreat due to shear force of numbers. Again, that is not being treated like a "cheap whore"...and I would give some free advise that you should not use such terminology to any Marine at Chosin who fought there and had friends die there...they would not understand or accept your nuance in the least.

That said, as I have said, the Chinese did push US force out of North Korea and actually well into South Korea before they were turned around and then themselves pushed strongly back north of Seoul where the line remains to this day.

The tactics that allowed the Chinese to do what they did in Korea could also work today, and particularly (and even more effectively) when coupled with their new technology. That tactic is simple, being absolutely willing to spend the resource (including personnel) they have to take their objective.

mickchew said:

Can we back off Jeff for a little bit ( sorry Vlad!).

Jeff wrote a book. And it's fiction. You have a choice to read it or not. And you're entitled to your own opinion or counter-facts if researched properly. But get this . His book is meant to be a good read and not to satisfy all of your high standards in terms of factual (perceived or otherwise) accuracy. And to challenge him on every single word, and syntax is getting a bit tiresome (for me at least). I read it somewhere as well about actually there being very few "wave" attacks (Wikepedia I think but who cares!). The book has it so there are (fiction remember?). Nuff said.

Click to expand...

Thanks so much for pointing that out, I tend to agree that some of this is somewhat nit picking, and I believe that some of it is really just symantics. However, as long as it is reasoned and civil, I do not mind responding.

mickchew said:

Digressing a bit from the current dicussion, Jeff can you comment on the article I posted on Page 9 by Victor N. Corpus a Brigadier General from the Philippine Armed Forces (in a way related to your book with supercavitating torpedoes SHKVAL or "Squall". e.t.c)? It's a bit long I know, but he seems to believe in the PLA's very high capability to cause a lot of damage to an attacking force such as a possible US strike with carrier battle groups asymmetrically and also directly.

Click to expand...

I have read his writings before and agree with a lot of it. I would, however, not agree that all of the so-called "maces" that he describes have rendered the CSG obsolete by any strectch. AEGIS can and has taken down supersonic, sea-skimming threats. With the addition of RAM, that capability is only enhanced. Aegis BMD is being added to the fleet for the ballsistic missile threat. So, supersonic sea skimmers, ballistic missile threats, and myriads of old strike aurcraft are still charging into the teeth of the CSG defense...and it is a defense that continues to evolve and be modernized. Certainly, there is a point where it may be saturated...but it is by no means a sure thing, and would prove very costly.

I believe that the sub-surface threat is the greatest. US defenses are modernizing here in some ways as new capabilities, particularly to address the supercavitating threat are being researched and developed. But none of them, to my knowledge have been fielded yet. When you add to this the fact that the CSG has retired two of its most capable systems (Spruance class destroyers and carrier-borne S-3 aircraft) it might be argued that todays CSGs are actually weaker in ASW defense than they were ten years ago. This is very concerning.

Having said all of this, one of the principle defenses of a carrier group, in addition to the hard capabilities just discussed is the ECM capability. This cannot and dare not be underestimated by any potential enemy. Their electronic devices simply are not going to work at anything like optimum in the vicinity of a CSG that is on a war footing and defending itself, and this alone will be a great defense to the CSG.

In addition, you have the "soft" capability of mobility and speed. A CSG is not going to be an easy thing to locate in war. They are not going to travel preditced paths, and they are not "slow" in the least, so the ballistic threat is reduced. Finding the CSG is also critical to all of the other "mace" elements discussed.

Realize, I am not discounting the threats because I believe myself that they are deadly serious. I am indicating that they are perhaps not as dire, particularly not to the point of obsoleting the CSG, as this individual asserts.

In my book I genuinely try and speak to all of these threats and technologies on both sides of the issue. To begin with, the results are terribly tragic for the US Navy...but they respond and fight back to good effect, as they would have to do.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Well, we disagree as regards Korea. The Chinese were vastly numerically superior at the points of attack. US forces caught in those positions fought strongly and mauled the attackers, who took apalling casualties...but were forced to retreat due to shear force of numbers. Again, that is not being treated like a "cheap whore"...and I would give some free advise that you should not use such terminology to any Marine at Chosin who fought there and had friends die there...they would not understand or accept your nuance in the least.

That said, as I have said, the Chinese did push US force out of North Korea and actually well into South Korea before they were turned around and then themselves pushed strongly back north of Seoul where the line remains to this day.

The tactics that allowed the Chinese to do what they did in Korea could also work today, and particularly (and even more effectively) when coupled with their new technology. That tactic is simple, being absolutely willing to spend the resource (including personnel) they have to take their objective.

Click to expand...

I respectfully agree jeff's point, calling any, Any military personal served in any country disrespect word is not very nice... all soldiers, even nazi soldiers, their job is to obey and defend their country for interest and security.

back to Korean war, in school histiory book, (even college ones) only have about a page on korean war, vietnam have about at least 5 page. Chinese did in fact caused the longest retreat in united state military history... I personally think kids should learn more about this part of history, and learn from the past mistake, and don't take lightly because your enemy don't have a navy, and good air force.

During the start of war chinese army are short of food, ammo, weapons, no navy to speak of, no air force (russia don't help until later). even have worse weapon than north korean force... One chinese divison's fire power only equal to one US company's fire power in term of atomatic weapon and artillery. chinese still mostly use weapon captured form japanese and small number of US made weapon from KMT force.

But they over come all this by the experience 60+ years of choas and war in china, some PVA officers start fighting the Japanese since their childhood. mass number of fearless young men with a cause of not get beat the west ever again. the SUPERB endurance of battle field condition, highly effective and experienced battle field commanders, and the support of chinese people.

when Mao first entered the war, most intelliects in china sought this will be a sure losing war. after opuim war to Japanese invasion of 1931. no chinese can beat, or even stop a west power as caliber of United State of America, WHO JUST beat Nazi germany and Japanese. How can china have a chance? But we saw what happened.

at beginning, chinese commander succesfully used the chinese infantry insertion tactic. slowly come and surround your enemy with large force, until attack, PVA is So close, that a artillery and air support is not a option for UN forces, then force your enemy to retreat. (of cource with large sacrifice).

Simply the speed, accrucy and effectiviness of chinese attack is just stuning.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Well, we disagree as regards Korea. The Chinese were vastly numerically superior at the points of attack. US forces caught in those positions fought strongly and mauled the attackers, who took apalling casualties...but were forced to retreat due to shear force of numbers.

Click to expand...

Yes, but they were not wave attacks in the slightest. Petty described it pretty well. They took a large force and surrounded smaller forces slowly and overwhelmed them at close range. These were not wave attacks. Your description of Chinese tactics seems to enforce the old stereotype that somehow prevails in the U.S. that the Chinese will just use massive numbers to overwhelm an enemy and pay not attention to tactics or strategy.

I can believe wave attacks from the GIR because Iran actually used wave attacks against Iraq and even more so given the other nations incorporated into it.

Again, that is not being treated like a "cheap whore"...and I would give some free advise that you should not use such terminology to any Marine at Chosin who fought there and had friends die there...they would not understand or accept your nuance in the least.

Click to expand...

Except, it is. The Chinese were able to demolish U.S. forces. Whether you or a Korean War veteran would take kindly to that analogy or not, it is still apt. It stronlgy emphasizes the extent to which we lost. It wasn't a slow and sloggin withdrawal. It took them little more than a month to force us back. All this despite the Chinese being an "inferior" force. It was a thorough and brutal thrashing. Yet you have the Chinese devolving from even these early tactics.

I actually liked a lot of the book, I just think it could have been much better had you emphasized more realism in regards to the Chinese and focused more on the military matters than politics.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

I'm actually interested in the 5 to 6 division thing. PVA records didn't indicate that they had 5 to 6 at Chosin. Chinese casualties during the Korean War was always misunderstood in the US because of the general state of disorder the NATO forces were in during the opening salvoes.

As for mick's assertion, I think I can speak for everyone except a certain poster here that we all appreciate the work Jeff has put into the series. I tend to nitpick partly because I wish to see another book or series written, and this time, without the certain difficiencies of the previous series.

Re: Great China VS U.S war book

Vlad Plasmius said:

Yes, but they were not wave attacks in the slightest. Petty described it pretty well. They took a large force and surrounded smaller forces slowly and overwhelmed them at close range. These were not wave attacks.

Click to expand...

As I stated, when you are on the ground, and at the point of attack you are vstly outnumbered (and clearly this was a result of proficient planning for the PLA), then the distinction is simply a matter of symantics.

Vlad Plasmius said:

I can believe wave attacks from the GIR because Iran actually used wave attacks against Iraq and even more so given the other nations incorporated into it.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Vlad Plasmius said:

Except, it is. The Chinese were able to demolish U.S. forces. Whether you or a Korean War veteran would take kindly to that analogy or not, it is still apt.

Click to expand...

Sorry, we disagree. Those forces doing the pushing took horrendous losses and were dealt harshly with...but they perservered because they were willing to take thos elosses and not let up. That is not the way someone deals with a cheap whore in your analogy. So I stand by my disagreement, and my advise. That the US forces were pushed back is without dobt...that they fought and inflicted horrendous losses on the attackers while being pushed back is also without doubt, however you want to charcterize it.

Anyhow, we are clearly not apt to agree on this point and so it is probably best that we simply recognize this and not thrash it about anymore, we have both made our points regarding the same.

Vlad Plasmius said:

I actually liked a lot of the book, I just think it could have been much better had you emphasized more realism in regards to the Chinese and focused more on the military matters than politics.

Click to expand...

Thanks...it is a fictional book and I will be the first to admit that my own writing style is not without its own warts and failings. Thanks for reading it, and thanks for your observations and critique...I really do take a lot of it to heart, even if some of it I disagree with.

eecsmaster said:

I'm actually interested in the 5 to 6 division thing. PVA records didn't indicate that they had 5 to 6 at Chosin. Chinese casualties during the Korean War was always misunderstood in the US because of the general state of disorder the NATO forces were in during the opening salvoes.

Click to expand...

I take a lot of it from my own conversation with my uncle (my Dad's sister's husband) who was on the ground as a part of the First Marine Division at Chosin.

Other from books I have read and from places like "The Chosin Few" and "Breakout from the Chosin" on the web. Sites written and maintained by those who were there and did the fighting. They do not view that battle as an abject retreat, more of a fighting withdrawal (which it was) in the face of vastly superior numbers which they punished severelly as they withdrew.

In addition to getting themselves out of the pocket, they also helped upwards of 100,000 North Koreans who did not want to be caught up in the communist government that was sure to follow, to evacuate with them through Hungnam.

eecsmaster said:

As for mick's assertion, I think I can speak for everyone except a certain poster here that we all appreciate the work Jeff has put into the series. I tend to nitpick partly because I wish to see another book or series written, and this time, without the certain difficiencies of the previous series.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much for those kind words and I understand your motivations completely.