Relatively speaking Chiang definitely focused more on the communist force, there are many examples of when the KMT went on the offensive against the communists, but there are precious few for when KMT attacked Japanese forces. This the one of the main reasons why KMT lost popular support.
I am well aware the civil war went on longer, the Chinese civil war still claimed more military deaths before the end of Sino-Jap War II.
In your response to solarz, I would like to point out Chinese GDP was more than 3 times that of Japan. Even though Japan occupied many territories, it was uncertain whether the economic income could even cover the cost of continued occupation.
Think about this for a moment. To take supplies, you need victories, and victories are relatively rare, and you must spend ammos to achieve that. And Stealing is far from easy, even if you pass the guards -- and amount must be small, else it would draw overwhelming response (remember stealing happened on enemy territories). This is no way to supply an army -- especially when you have territories to defend and not merely running a guerilla war.
While Chinese armies are short of weapons, it's not that short. China did managed to produce over half a million rifles, 40000 light machine gun,
20000 heavy machine guns, etc. The production would have been larger and heavier if resources like steel is available (or example, China abandoned production of 75mm guns and 37mm anti-tank guns because the lack of high quality steel, while they have the ability to produce those weapons). And note while weapons are subject to combat losses, they are not consumed.
Unless you are talking about small skirmishes, logistics have a disproportionate
importance in warfare. Unfortunately, non-professionals tend to lose sight on that.
Why do you need victories to obtain supplies? The Warsaw uprising saw the weapons and munition the Polish resistance was able to beg, steal and raid without having a major victory over the Wehrmacht.
Think on the scale as well, what is 1/2 a million rifles? Germany had 13 million men under arms during WW2, Russia had 30 million men and women under arms during WW2. the IJA had 6 million soldiers and the NRA had 4.3 million regulars under arms, while the PLA had at least as much.
1/2 a million rifles cannot arm 25% of the NRA let alone make up for attrition.
Had china produced the 37mm guns? and the 75mm? I do not believe china had the ability to produce Tungsten carbide in any significant quantity then for China to make the tools to machine the barrels of large caliber guns. Do you have a source?
You also have to remember that the Chinese are fighting in friendly soil in both China and Korea. I don't think you appreciate how well the Chinese military was coping with minimal resources - just look at how well the Vietnamese did with their minimal logistics.
I am not saying that logistics is not important, but history had shown that a dedicated force with weaker logistics can defeat a stronger force with better logistics - such as Washington leading the continantal army against the british and the vietnamese against the french,
So you think supplies grow on the tree and Japanese is handing over arms and ammunition? Be serious. You need millions of rounds per day per division -- let's see you try to steal that. You need victories because it's typically captured from dead bodies or enemies running away.
As for arms, I said produced. There are arms purchased and produced before the war -- there are over 800K rifles owned by Nationalist in 1935. Yes, the arms produced is no where near sufficient. PLA managed to produce around 10000 rifles, if I remember correctly. PLA however, captured more arms due to the nature of guerilla warfare.
China actually managed to produce 37mm anti-tank gun by 1941, but it lack material for mass production. China can produce 75mm gun before the war. Search for Chinese arm production in Sino-Japanese war in Chinese, and you will find the mention of it.
Vietnam did well because they have a safe base and supply source because US didn't want war with China, after Korean War. If US can occupy North Vietnam, the war would be over. Vietnam never own a non-guerilla battle with US.
Washington's army defeated the British only with French support -- French artillery, and French Warship blockading British force in Yorktown. It never managed to capture a major town that was defended on its own.
Did I say supplies grow on trees? and do you need a gun to fight a war?
How many guns and munition do you think you can rip off dead bodies compared to raiding an arsenal or supply depot? I bet you get more by emptying the enemy Arsenal.
Your numbers still indicate that there were no where sufficient arms to arm the soldiers - what do you think the remaining ~7 million Chinese soldiers fought with? Which you would recall traditional weapons of war like spears and daos; and supplies from the Burma road. This answer your question on munition, these weapon does not require munitions.
I admit, my Chinese is not the best, can you link and translate as other forum members have on other topics? I believe the 37mm is the krupp or borfors model. what model is the 75mm?
The fact is, the US cannot occupy Vietnam. as the UN was unable to occupy Korea - and definitely Japan was not able to occupy most of China. There is a distinction between the NVA and the VC; The VC never won a convention engagement with the US amry, but neither had the US army won an guerrilla engagement with the VC. The NVA had historical sucess against the French Foreign Legion at Dein Bien Phu and was the force which took Siagon - and in many cases have fought the Americans to a standstill. But ultimately the US lost the war - and that is what mattered for the Vietnamese.
You have a gross simplification of the revolutionary war. Take, the siege of Boston, where the Americans raided Fort Saint-Jean capturing 180 cannons and multiple small arms later used in the siege of Boston (back to the point I made earlier about raiding arsenals, instead of picking weapons from dead bodies). - The Siege of Boston happened in 1775, the French support only came after 1778; so I dare you to say that Boston was not a Major town captured by the revolutionary army on its own defended by willing defenders whom held out for 10 months.
We are talking about the Sino-Nippon war, how fast do you think can the Japanese mobilize their forces to intercept Chinese guerrillas, when the majority of the IJA marches on foot?You argument remind me of one quote -- "Let them eat cake!". Because, Marie Antoinette, arsenals and supply dumps are well behind front line and well defended. It's actually easier to get it off the dead troops-- that's what guerillas do. Even you can raid an arsenal or supply dump, it's no use if you cannot get it away. Modern communication make it much harder to succeed, because even if you are successful in the raid, the reinforcements comes much faster. That's why these kind of operations opted to *destroy* most of the captured items rather then keeping them because people need to melt away.
How many times did you watch enemy at the gates? My ancestors, fought with knifes and spears during the Japanese occupation - the point in fact is still, you do not need bullets to fight a war; you might not fight it well, but you are still fighting a war.There are not enough arms to arm all the soldiers -- so divisions have unarmed soldiers waiting to inherit arms from dead and wounded.
the thing is, you are right, Chinese intervention, just as Japan cannot occupy China because the US and the USSR was feeding China with war materials and arms.US cannot occupy Vietnam? Are you joking? US almost occupied North Korea before Chinese intervention. US never won a guerilla battle? How about the Tet Offensive -- it was a Vietnamese political victory, but a catastrophic military defeat. Dein Bien Phu was successful thanks to Chines artillery and logistic support. You think guerilla warfare as a cure all -- it's not. There are numerous case of successful counterinsurgency campaigns -- Israel, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, etc. Guerillas without protected base or foreign support usually dies off.
American revolution discussion is not very relevant here -- due to the technological advances. Machine guns strengthen site defense, and radio and telephones bring reinforcements in much faster -- so the defenses are stronger. I am may have overstated on not capturing city, but French support was pivotal. And even though England lost an army, it could have replace it if England decides to continue the war.
From the information I have, it seems the Communists started this --
and that eventually caused this
From the communist side, they claimed Nationalist started this
I am not aware of anything earlier than that. And there are several incidents after that.
In any case, Nationalist had to respond, because not doing so affects rear area or front line. Necessity is different from deliberate attack.
We are talking about the Sino-Nippon war, how fast do you think can the Japanese mobilize their forces to intercept Chinese guerrillas, when the majority of the IJA marches on foot?
Also, a front is not a distinct line on a map, especially in a large country. The Germans did not hold a continuous line in Russia with hundreds of kilometers between army group north, center and south, what makes you think Japan with much less men under arms and much less motorized can hold a continuous line in China? If Japan cannot hold a Continuous line in China, then how can the supply deport be far behind enemy lines?
How many times did you watch enemy at the gates? My ancestors, fought with knifes and spears during the Japanese occupation - the point in fact is still, you do not need bullets to fight a war; you might not fight it well, but you are still fighting a war.
My point is US CAN occupy Vietnam, if it is willing to pay the cost (and China allows it). Japan almost did, but that was at the cost of the Pacific war -- I believe it was a close call.Ultimatly, the US did not occupy Vietnam nor did her occupy Korea. Similarly, the Japanese cannot occupy China. Which is the fact no matter what you wish to believe.
The Tet was not a US victory as you have said nor was it a NVA defeat. Sure the VC lost alot of men and material, but that was a part of the plan right? so that the Americans would help purge the communist forces not created by the North Vietnamese Politburo - just like what Hitler did to the SA. It was a resounding success to the North Vietnamese high command, With one stroke, they were able to consolidate the party, woe the American public's heart against the war and give the southern forces a bloody nose.
I did not say that guerrilla warfare is a cure all end it all and your examples are skewed. The Israelis had not won over the Hamas yet, the IRA won Ireland's freedom - so technically the British lost, Sri Lanka - the last war war, the Tamil tigers were not a guerrilla force and fought piece meal battles. So in essence, the successful guerrilla campaigns were: the US revolutionary war, Chinese civil war, The Yugoslav People's Army vs the Wehrmacht, the VC in the Vietnam war, Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the soviets.
You should have mentioned the most sucessful COIN operation was how the British handled the Communist Uprising in Malaya. In short, if the local people supports it, a guerrilla action generally will succeed.
Well, i digress, it is quite relevant to the Sino-Japanese conflict. At that time, telegrams were what China and Japan relied on for long range communication, both Japan and China was reliant on the railways to move troops as were the Americans in the revolutionary war. And how fast can you bring in reinforcements if you do not have reserves readily available ? For example, IIRC the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler took ~1.5 months to transit from france to soviet union with the majority of the route on friendly soil. I doubt Japan can send reinforcement from Manchuria to lets say Canton or Wuhan any faster - by which time, a guerrilla attack should have well been over.
Yes, but are those troops able to handle the first rate armies? I admit there are cases where the American Riflemen licked British musketeers, but the regular armies more often then not has the advantage. And by the virtue of the control of the sea, British had the better supply line. Americans armies are often starved of supplies even on the rich land of the colonies -- because they couldn't find enough wagoners to transport the supplies.And regarding Britain raising another army, the issue is mobilization and public support, the British public did not support the war. William Pitt - Earl of Chatham said in 1977: "If I Were An American, As I Am An Englishman, While A Foreign Troop Was Landed In My Country I Never Would Lay Down My Arms,--never!" The British public did not support the war with the 13 colonies. Mobilization wise, do you know that the Grand fleet had not been fully mobilized untill the end of the war? For you to assume that Britain can mobilize and raise another army quickly is wrong. The Atlantic transit was around 4 months by sail? mobilization of first rate troops back in those days for an expedition force takes around 4-6 months. By the time the new army got to the Americas, the war would have been over or the Americans would have been able to raise an even bigger army.
But no, i agree, French support was significant, more so because France declared war on Britain and having British troops to fight the french processions around the globe instead of the Americans.
LOL, why don't you back your argument up with some statistics? how long is too long? How do you strafe and bomb guerrillas in WW2? Which Japanese ammo dump in China had large garrisons? What was the guard detail? Guerrillas raids of 200~ men are reasonable, while Japanese dumps generally have a guard detail of 10~ men and a platoon or two near by?Yes, but that is irrelevant. Japanese did have cars and trucks and mechanized units -- and aircraft. And you are talking about attacking a fortified position (supply dumps, arsenals). If you stayed too long, rapid reaction units wouldl come and aircraft would start strafing and bombing. And how large a unit you can assemble without detection? You need a fairly large unit because those sites are garrisoned, or have garrisons near by.
you should really back up your arguments with sources not your ego nor your beliefs. Fact is, as I have shown, there are multiple Japanese ammo dumps being captured and destroyed by Guerrillas - and they happen quite often.Give it up. This line of argument is convincing at best. Robbing an arsenal or supply dump is worse than robbing a bank. And bank robbery does not happen that often.
Again look at the Tet offensive, I bet you Saigon was quite a far march from the 17th parallel - and it was attacked by quite a large force which was undetected.Sophistry. Rear area is area not under threat -- for example, areas longer then distance you can march carrying supplies and food. Large units are easily detected from air, and reaction force can be send. Small units can be handled by garrison.
Well it depends on your perspective, China was indeed conquered and I do not dispute that. But then again, the Ming began as a partisan movement to restore the Sung; and the Nationalists, Sun Yat San was a part of 天地會 which was a militant organization founded after the fall of the Ming and purposed to overthrow the Qing to Restore the Ming. So yeah, China was conquered, but the fight was never over.While people are willing to sacrifice greatly to defeat invasion -- there is a limit. China did get conquered by Mongols and Manchurians. There are many stories of brave resistance, but ultimately, they failed.
How did Taiwan fiercely resist the Japanese? The Mongols took 6 decades to conquer China (the Mongols took less than 10 years to conquer Europe). Japan took 4 months to conquer Taiwan.Taiwan resisted fiercely at first against Japanese, but it was pacified at the end. Even now that Japan has gone after more than 60 years, you have people like Lee Teng-hui.
Fact is, the US did NOT occupy Vietnam. Ghee, if the US is willing to surrender to Afghanistan, I am sure the US will lose the war.My point is US CAN occupy Vietnam, if it is willing to pay the cost (and China allows it). Japan almost did, but that was at the cost of the Pacific war -- I believe it was a close call.
And so You agree with me that the Tet was a very successful Guerrilla operation? thank you.In a way, American was screwed by it's own domestic politics to trying to portray the war as successful. After the Tet offensive, there was nothing left in the South and the network had to be rebuilt. It was a military catastrophe.
Nothern Ireland treaty existed because the IRA was successful - The IRA split into the pro treaty and anti treaty group which fought the civil war. How can you claim that the IRA guerrilla operation were a failure?I said North Ireland, which is still in UK. Israel has not won over Hamas, but it is slowly being ethnically cleaned -- and once that's done, it's over. Tamil Tiger was a guerilla force that tried to hold territory and became a regular army-- and got clobbered by traditional army. Chinese Civil war after 1945 is no longer a guerilla war -- once you have front line and territory, it is no longer guerilla war. And do remember CCP was almost terminated if not for the Japanese invasion -- and covert backing of USSR. And remaining of you example have significant foreign backers.
The guerilla wars without foreign backers are, more often then not, gradually suppressed.
you are correct, the question is have you killed enough? Germany did not pacify the Soviet Union after killing 30 million, nor did Japan pacify China after killing 20 million nor did the Germans pacify the Jews after killing 6 million.If you are willing to resort to a boody operation, you can still do it.
US pacified Philippine after killing 800K people, for example. In fact, that's how Imperialists did it in Asia and Africa, not to mention Americas.
The 1st SS was only one division, 15,000 men and guerrilla forces are not small nor are they weak. As we have discussed previously, the Tet offensive saw a VC mobilized 0.5 million men undetected. Tito had 0.8 million guerrillas. 1 division is nothing much.Why the hack would you move a major unit that for a a guerilla incursion?
There is really no point of guerilla operation if your opponents are weaker than you -- just go and kill him. So the opponents of the guerilla are stronger in strength, and more often then not, in number. Hence we are not talking about strategic mobility -- we are taking LOCAL mobility. And guerilla forces are weaker in LOCAL mobility. It does have the advantage in stealth and suprise-- but only if you keep your numbers low.
Defeat a first rate army in battle? maybe not, but to contain one - definitely. The North Vietnamese and the Mujahadeen had already shown that.Yes, but are those troops able to handle the first rate armies? I admit there are cases where the American Riflemen licked British musketeers, but the regular armies more often then not has the advantage. And by the virtue of the control of the sea, British had the better supply line. Americans armies are often starved of supplies even on the rich land of the colonies -- because they couldn't find enough wagoners to transport the supplies.
Isolated incidents does not make it common. You do here of bank robberies and attempts happen -- how many attempts and how many succeeds? Not a lot. While supply columns and supply dumps are vulnerable, they are far from easy to attack. And you haven't really made the case this tactic is sufficient to supply a regular army.LOL, why don't you back your argument up with some statistics? how long is too long? How do you strafe and bomb guerrillas in WW2? Which Japanese ammo dump in China had large garrisons? What was the guard detail? Guerrillas raids of 200~ men are reasonable, while Japanese dumps generally have a guard detail of 10~ men and a platoon or two near by?
Ma Zhanshan lead Chinese partisans to capture the Manchukuo treasury and captured a Japanese airfield with 6 aircraft? <- he shouldn't be able to do that had the rapid deployment force you claim existed.
The Filipino Guerrillas were successful in capturing the Japanese ammo dump in Paluan; and many cases shown Japanese supply dumps being destroyed by Guerillas after the men had taken what they have such as at Zaozhuang. Historically, supply dumps and supply columns were easy target.
.
You have answered your own question with the Tet offensive, The Vietnamese were able to mobilize 1/2 a million men undetected - 50 divisions equivalent - when the Americans had satellite surveillance, night thermal imagery and radar. How much do you think the Chinese can mobilize in a larger country with fewer enemies?
you should really back up your arguments with sources not your ego nor your beliefs. Fact is, as I have shown, there are multiple Japanese ammo dumps being captured and destroyed by Guerrillas - and they happen quite often.
Again look at the Tet offensive, I bet you Saigon was quite a far march from the 17th parallel - and it was attacked by quite a large force which was undetected.
.
And again, Ma ZhanShan, Manchuko was quite far behind the front lines and yet the capital Changchun was raided successfully.
I have shown you a contemporary case where reality differed from your theories, you can either accept that you are incorrect or modify your theory to suit. But the fact is, places thought to be safe traditionally often were raided sucessfully.
.
Well it depends on your perspective, China was indeed conquered and I do not dispute that. But then again, the Ming began as a partisan movement to restore the Sung; and the Nationalists, Sun Yat San was a part of 天地會 which was a militant organization founded after the fall of the Ming and purposed to overthrow the Qing to Restore the Ming. So yeah, China was conquered, but the fight was never over.
There were literally hundereds of uprisings and rebellions in early Yuan and early Qing by Han loyalists. Both the Yuan and Qing were unable to stamp them out during their reign and today Yuan and the Qing is no more, and Han people are back in charge, did the Han people fail in their resistance?
How did Taiwan fiercely resist the Japanese? The Mongols took 6 decades to conquer China (the Mongols took less than 10 years to conquer Europe). Japan took 4 months to conquer Taiwan.
I feel this statement is more political than accurate.
.
Fact is, the US did NOT occupy Vietnam. Ghee, if the US is willing to surrender to Afghanistan, I am sure the US will lose the war.
You statement is based on alot of IFs which did not exist or happen.
And so You agree with me that the Tet was a very successful Guerrilla operation? thank you.
.
IRA certainly failed -- it failed to drive out the British. The treaty signifies failure -- part of the group was bought off by the Brit.Nothern Ireland treaty existed because the IRA was successful - The IRA split into the pro treaty and anti treaty group which fought the civil war. How can you claim that the IRA guerrilla operation were a failure?
like hell would the Palestinians be ethically cleansed - they will only be repopulated with Arabs, Israel cannot kill them all.
.
And you theory about Guerrilla war exist only when the Guerrilla holds no territory is wrong. The CCP always held some territory. only form the Jiangxi province can there be a long march to Yunnan. Similarly, Tito held territory in Yugoslavia against the Germans and the Mujihadeen held territory against the Soviets during their respective Guerrilla campaign. - Even the Quebec Guerrillas held land during 1759.
And I disagree that the CCP was nearly terminated, Statistically, they were greatly reduced by the long march. You seem to forget that the Jiangxi soviet is not the only one around. The long march also dispersed many soviet men through out the country to form soviets. This is very important in a Country which was mainly illiterate and had a negligible wireless radio reception.
Who supported the Yugoslavs?- as you claim that there was foreign support the soviet union definitely did not. Or lets say the bolshevik during the Russian revolution? the bolshevik guerrilla did win the war and their country.
.
you are correct, the question is have you killed enough? Germany did not pacify the Soviet Union after killing 30 million, nor did Japan pacify China after killing 20 million nor did the Germans pacify the Jews after killing 6 million.
it is easy for you to say that you can kill them all, but reality is - can your soldiers do it? can your society bear it?
The 1st SS was only one division, 15,000 men and guerrilla forces are not small nor are they weak. As we have discussed previously, the Tet offensive saw a VC mobilized 0.5 million men undetected. Tito had 0.8 million guerrillas. 1 division is nothing much.
It is a common misconception the Guerrilla operation were small and it isn't true. Revolutionary war Minutemen units can be as large as 500 men easily (considering revolutionary war army size to be around 10,000 men).
Do regulars always have better mobility? i doubt it. Guerrilla warfare depend greatly on terrain, were the 1st air Calv more able to hack through the jungle of Vietnam? How well did soviet armored column fared in the rugged terrain in Afghanistan?
Defeat a first rate army in battle? maybe not, but to contain one - definitely. The North Vietnamese and the Mujahadeen had already shown that.
The thing is a first rate army is good for one thing only and that is to fight big battles and to hold strategic locations, they are crap at holding vast ground over long time. A militia or guerrilla sucks at invading another but excels at defending home.
it comes down to purpose, the GI whom wants to do his tour and go home or the Russian whom want to complete his conscript and go home vs people fighting for their homes.
And I think you are wrong that the British controlled the seas during the American Revolutionary War. It was a contest at best. The Royal navy lost most of the major actions involving the continental navy.
Your argument that supplies were an issue because of navel supremacy is faulty. Most of the continental army was feed from the grounds, while the British had to bring in supply from Europe or buy them from stores. The Americans having navel supremacy would not change that fact.