Korean War 70 years later Win Lose and A draw

To be fair, the Korea War was a learning experiences for both the US Army and Chinese Army.

The bravery, sacrifice and tactics of CPVA were underestimated and not expected by the US Army. They did not have the experience of dealing with such an enemy before. But the US Army was able to regroup after the initial setbacks and learned the weakness of the CPVA (weekly offense, for example). They became better and were able to hold the line later during the war.

The Chinese Army did perform way above everyone's expectations. But they also learned that the US Army was not Nationalist Army or even Japanese Army. The air power and logistic support were particularly impressive. The US Army's morale in general was low compared to the CPVA, but they did demonstrate their discipline even during retreat. The Korea War experience influenced how PLA developed itself later. It was the first time the Chinese military fought a large-scale modern war against a world-class opponent. The PLA Air Force was born out of Korea War, for example. The CPVA were also much better equipped later during the war due to the Soviet Union support.

There were respects from both sides to the other side. In the end, both sides lost appetite to continue the fight - it didn't make much sense any more when there were other higher priorities elsewhere.

I saw someone posting that PVA fought with no artillery and had only mortars to fight against UN howitzers. While that was the case in many battles in the first months of the Chinese intervention, it was certainly not the case in later stages of the war. And the absence of artillery was not due the Chinese having a shortage of artillery. Far from it. I explained the reasons why the Chinese were unable to effectively employ artillery in a previous post.

Others claimed that the Chinese artillery was obsolete. Yet, at the start of their intervention, China possessed and used the same 105mm US made howitzers that the UN forces did.

Then we have those who operate under the pretense that the bulk of the UN were the US and that the PVA and KPA were fighting primarily the US in Korea. Do they not know that the majority of the UN force were South Koreans, who outnumbered the US troops 2:1?

Lest some misinterpret this as an attempt to discredit the Chinese soldiers, far from it. They fought like lions and showed everyone what battle hardened troops and officers can achieve, even against a technologically superior and better equipped enemy.

silentlurker said:

50% casualties is 50% casualties: give the American troops credit where it is due.

Click to expand...

Well. Just a minute here. I never said US troops weren't gallant or anything like that. And yes I certainly give any army credit where it is due. And US included.

But the debate here is because some posters claimed that US troops were under supplied, and Chinese troops were not as poorly equipped as history had claimed.

This is just plain nonsense. The very fact the U.S. coming out of world war II with her war industry intact. And US having over 50% of the world's GDP. is somehow through logistics and anything else these posters dreamed up, can leave their troops poorly equipped, worse than even the Chinese troops.

The same Chinese troops that relies on China with less than 2% of world GDP. And far less war making industry capacity of any kind. And with its ally the Soviets unwilling to dip In their pockets to help China in anyway. Yet these Chinese troops somehow can have better and more equipments than the US requires mental gymnastics of the Olga korbet magnitude.

nlalyst said:

Then we have those who operate under the pretense that the bulk of the UN were the US and that the PVA and KPA were fighting primarily the US in Korea. Do they not know that the majority of the UN force were South Koreans, who outnumbered the US troops 2:1?

Click to expand...

I think you've miss interpret what we are saying. South Korea was fighting as South Korea. And it is allies to US because US is there to help them defeat North Korea.

Yes, we are old enough and adult enough to know there are other nations involved in the fight. At the same time we are mature and adult enough to know these nations wouldn't have joined in the fight if US haven't.

So lets please spare us the agony of having to debate it is UN's fight for freedom etc. Please bear in mind because of politics, the very nation which contain 1/5th of mankind and which this conflict affected the most after the two Koreas never had a say in this wonderful UN utopia of ours!

Gatekeeper said:

Well. Just a minute here. I never said US troops weren't gallant or anything like that. And yes I certainly give any army credit where it is due. And US included.

But the debate here is because some posters claimed that US troops were under supplied, and Chinese troops were not as poorly equipped as history had claimed.

This is just plain nonsense. The very fact the U.S. coming out of world war II with her war industry intact. And US having over 50% of the world's GDP. is somehow through logistics and anything else these posters dreamed up, can leave their troops poorly equipped, worse than even the Chinese troops.

The same Chinese troops that relies on China with less than 2% of world GDP. And far less war making industry capacity of any kind. And with its ally the Soviets unwilling to dip In their pockets to help China in anyway. Yet these Chinese troops somehow can have better and more equipments than the US requires mental gymnastics of the Olga korbet magnitude.

Click to expand...

Okay, I may have misunderstood your point. Although Americans had significantly better supplies than the Chinese, I certainly would not call them pampered. War is war after all.

silentlurker said:

I certainly would not call them pampered. War is war after all.

Click to expand...

No troops is pampered if that helps with this debate. I apologise if my use of this term led to misunderstanding.

I was using pampered loosely, and it's a relative term, as to illustrate in comparison to the Chinese troops. I think we can all agreed that the U.S. troops have better everthing than the Chinese troops simply because US is the world's richest nation at the time. In the words of Trump, it is what it is.

nlalyst said:

I saw someone posting that PVA fought with no artillery and had only mortars to fight against UN howitzers. While that was the case in many battles in the first months of the Chinese intervention, it was certainly not the case in later stages of the war. And the absence of artillery was not due the Chinese having a shortage of artillery. Far from it. I explained the reasons why the Chinese were unable to effectively employ artillery in a previous post.

Others claimed that the Chinese artillery was obsolete. Yet, at the start of their intervention, China possessed and used the same 105mm US made howitzers that the UN forces did.

Click to expand...

The promised Soviets equipment and weapon supplies did not come until months later. The initial fights (till the early 1951) CPVA relied mostly on the assorted weapons and ammunition they collected during the WWII against Japanese and the civil war, and much of the ammunition they could not even manufacture domestically.

The performance of the CPVA during the early months was due in large part to their tactics, besides bravery and sacrifices. They took advantage of the landscape, the nights and the close-in fighting, thus blunted some of the advantages of the UN forces in firepower, armor and air cover. Many of the CPVA soldiers were veterans of previous wars. That's why I say "human wave" is such a myth. Against modern troops with all the advantages that the UN forces possessed against the CPVA, they would be "slaughtered" as General MacArthur suggested, if all they had were bravery and sacrifices.

nlalyst said:

Then we have those who operate under the pretense that the bulk of the UN were the US and that the PVA and KPA were fighting primarily the US in Korea. Do they not know that the majority of the UN force were South Koreans, who outnumbered the US troops 2:1?

Lest some misinterpret this as an attempt to discredit the Chinese soldiers, far from it. They fought like lions and showed everyone what battle hardened troops and officers can achieve, even against a technologically superior and better equipped enemy.

Click to expand...

Let's be frank. The CPVA formed the bulk of the communist armies, and the US was the backbone of the UN forces. If the US did not get involved militarily, South Korea would not stand a chance. That's why I referred in my previous post only Chinese Army and the US Army. The lessons that the CPVA learned were mostly about fighting with the US military. And when CPVA deployed the troops, they applied somewhat different tactics against the US Army and others. When the CPVA veterans recounted their Korea War battles, they made a distinction between the US Army and the South Korea Army.

I am surprise how much the Soviet Union air force were involved in the war.

Five things you may not know about the Korean War

Seventy years ago, the Chinese People's Volunteers (CPV) crossed the Yalu River and fought alongside the army of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) against the Republic of Korea (ROK) and U.S.-led UN forces. A total of 2.9 million CPV soldiers entered the battlefield, 197,653 of whom sacrificed their lives in the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea (1950-1953 Korean War).

Enemy on the doorstep: China's involvement in the Korean War

@bomberman

I'm not knocking you. But this is why we get frustrated. We spent a few pages debating the Chinese and US troops and their equipments.

And judging by some of the replies, it is clear members here haven't bothered to watch or read what other members already posted. Have their read and watch the videos. We won't be going around in circles.

And judging by you last two post. I can now see why. These videos have already been posted on 162 and 164.