Korean War 70 years later Win Lose and A draw

Strangelove

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
张计发 Zhang Jifa fought the Japanese invaders, then fought the yanks in Korea at Battle of Triangle Hill (上甘岭). Wounded 8 times, awarded 6 times. Died today aged 95.

电影《上甘岭》连长张忠发原型、原志愿军第15军45师135团7连连长张计发，6月15日在河南信阳逝世，享年95岁。上甘岭战役，载入世界战争史册的战役，43天内，3.7平方公里土地上，敌我双方投入兵力数十万人，倾泻炮弹百万余发，上万中国军人用血肉之躯扛住了敌人的狂轰乱炸，筑起了一座无法撼动的丰碑！


张计发.jpg
Korea - 上甘岭.jpg
 
Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
On the one hand I admired him as a Chinese battling racism. On the other I loath him for fighting against China in Korea.


Pioneer military aviator shoots down racism

Won, Ronald flew an F-84 Thunderjet in Korea in 1951

POSTED BYRANDALL

OCTOBER 19, 2019

By Dr. Raymond Douglas Chong (Zhang Weiming)

Ronald Chin Won is a pioneer aviator who, against all odds, overcame racism to become a military and commercial pilot for the Air Force and Pan Am in 1939. As a trailblazer in the Chinese American community, he served in three wars and became both an accomplished military and commercial aviator until 1985.

Ronald was born on May 20, 1925, at Omaha – Gateway of the West in Nebraska. Jok Chin, his father, was a successful merchant from Toishan with various businesses including the famous King Fong Café in downtown Omaha.

Link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Strangelove

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

  • US troops took some 60 Japanese civilians to Korea in the opening stages of the war, documents from the US National Archives reveal
  • A 12-year-old boy was among some minors involved in combat, researchers from the Mainichi newspaper found

 
I

Inst

Captain
A CSG might have around 10k people, given 6000 people on the carrier and 300 people per Arleigh Burke destroyer. Automation might put the costs down further.

The constant assumptions that the Americans would not be willing to pay in blood should be questioned, given that the Americans were quite willing to lose 600k+ people during the COVID-19 crisis simply to save their economy. And naval engagements, unlike land engagements, usually require substantially more people, although the cost of the equipment increases substantially.

===

American warfighting in the Chinese periphery has generally failed, but often for a lack of will. Had the Americans sought to do so, they could have begun a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula during Korea. They could have stayed in Vietnam and just bled the Vietcong dry, implicitly killing massive numbers of Vietnamese civilians at the same time. In both cases, the Americans treated China as a sideshow, and consequently weren't willing to bleed to get the job done.

The next time around, however, the Americans may have the will needed to settle for a telefrag, i.e, a full-scale nuclear exchange to defend their primacy.
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Inst said:
A CSG might have around 10k people, given 6000 people on the carrier and 300 people per Arleigh Burke destroyer. Automation might put the costs down further.

The constant assumptions that the Americans would not be willing to pay in blood should be questioned, given that the Americans were quite willing to lose 600k+ people during the COVID-19 crisis simply to save their economy. And naval engagements, unlike land engagements, usually require substantially more people, although the cost of the equipment increases substantially.

===

American warfighting in the Chinese periphery has generally failed, but often for a lack of will. Had the Americans sought to do so, they could have begun a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula during Korea. They could have stayed in Vietnam and just bled the Vietcong dry, implicitly killing massive numbers of Vietnamese civilians at the same time. In both cases, the Americans treated China as a sideshow, and consequently weren't willing to bleed to get the job done.

The next time around, however, the Americans may have the will needed to settle for a telefrag, i.e, a full-scale nuclear exchange to defend their primacy.
Click to expand...
That is complete BS America can't start nuclear war in Korea because it feared retaliation from then Soviet Union as the country share border with Korea. Any radioactive release will drift across the border. So Truman remove McArthur because he does not have stomach for WW III
And after disaster in Chosin lake battle, they respect Chinese border and learn their lesson not to invade North Vietnam. So the stalemate and continuing Vietnam war does not make sense in term of blood and treasure that has to be paid.

Not sure any one has stomach for nuclear war because traditionally America willing to involve in foreign war so long the home land is safe. But there is no such luck in the nuclear war
 
E

Expert1324

New Member
Registered Member
Gatekeeper said:
On the one hand I admired him as a Chinese battling racism. On the other I loath him for fighting against China in Korea.
Click to expand...
There's this other guy called 呂超然 was absolutely brutal during Korean war. He shouted "stop firing" in Mandarin in the middle of battle and disguised himself as a Chinese soldier, causing PVA to stop shooting. He then help his squad to escape while annihilating the whole Chinese unit which iirc is a war crime.
 
Bellum_Romanum

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Inst said:
A CSG might have around 10k people, given 6000 people on the carrier and 300 people per Arleigh Burke destroyer. Automation might put the costs down further.

The constant assumptions that the Americans would not be willing to pay in blood should be questioned, given that the Americans were quite willing to lose 600k+ people during the COVID-19 crisis simply to save their economy. And naval engagements, unlike land engagements, usually require substantially more people, although the cost of the equipment increases substantially.

===

American warfighting in the Chinese periphery has generally failed, but often for a lack of will. Had the Americans sought to do so, they could have begun a nuclear war on the Korean peninsula during Korea. They could have stayed in Vietnam and just bled the Vietcong dry, implicitly killing massive numbers of Vietnamese civilians at the same time. In both cases, the Americans treated China as a sideshow, and consequently weren't willing to bleed to get the job done.

The next time around, however, the Americans may have the will needed to settle for a telefrag, i.e, a full-scale nuclear exchange to defend their primacy.
Click to expand...
Stop doing drugs it's not good for your health bud.
 
I

Inst

Captain
Bellum_Romanum said:
Stop doing drugs it's not good for your health bud.
Click to expand...
Chinese triumphalism is very dangerous. The game is highly playable, but it's not an automatic shoe-in. There are obviously weaknesses and problems for China in a Sino-American competition, and these have to be remedied. Simply blustering etc might be the best way to deal with Indians, because the Indians have a weaker position, but vs the United States the United States still has a lead in military technology and equipment, alongside a larger nominal economy, by about 33%.
 
I

Inst

Captain
Hendrik_2000 said:
That is complete BS America can't start nuclear war in Korea because it feared retaliation from then Soviet Union as the country share border with Korea. Any radioactive release will drift across the border. So Truman remove McArthur because he does not have stomach for WW III
And after disaster in Chosin lake battle, they respect Chinese border and learn their lesson not to invade North Vietnam. So the stalemate and continuing Vietnam war does not make sense in term of blood and treasure that has to be paid.

Not sure any one has stomach for nuclear war because traditionally America willing to involve in foreign war so long the home land is safe. But there is no such luck in the nuclear war
Click to expand...
The Cold War was a farce. The United States constantly had a superior position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. The Soviets were basically conjured up as an enemy for domestic politics, as much as China is being painted as the enemy now, but the Soviets never had nuclear parity until almost the very end.

The Soviets were given rope by the Americans because the Americans wanted them to survive to present the prospect of a foe both for diplomatic and internal purposes.

===

As for the relative strength / weakness of the United States, while the United States is beset by internal contradictions, the internal contradictions aren't going to result in collapse in the short-term. Blowing up 6 CSGs with minimal losses could cause panic in the United States, as well as political turmoil Stateside, but short of that the United States isn't going to pop in the short-term. And the Chinese currently do not have the capability, unless they do a massive military build-up, to put down 6 CSGs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top