Sino-Vietnam war

Wonderful thesis work and a good history lesson. Thanks.

Hello
I've been trying to get a detailed OOB of both sides. These are all I know about PLA now. Very grateful if someone can correct or add more to it, especially tank and artillery units.


11th corps: 31st, 32nd, 33rd infantry divisons; ? artillery regiment, ? AA regiment.
13th corps: 37th, 38th, 39th infantry divisions; ? artillery regiment, ? AA regiment.
14th corps: 40th, 41st, 42nd infantry divisions; ? artillery regiment, ? AA regiment.
41st corps: 121st, 122nd, 123rd infantry divisions; ? artillery regiment, ? AA regiment; ? tank regiment.
42nd corps: 124th, 125th, 126th infantry divisions; ? artillery regiment, ? AA regiment; ? tank regiment.
43rd corps: 127th, 128th, 129th infantry divisions; ? artillery regiment, ? AA regiment; ? tank regiment.
50th corps: 148th, 149th, 150th infantry divisions; ? artillery regiment, ? AA regiment; ? tank regiment.
54nd corps: 160th, 161st, 162nd infantry divisions; ? artillery regiment, ? AA regiment; ? tank regiment.
55nd corps: 163rd, 164th, 165th infantry divisions; ? artillery regiment, ? AA regiment; ? tank regiment.
20th corps' 58th infantry division.
Guangxi's infantry division (3rd division ?)
1st artillery division.
7th artillery division.
65th AA division.
70th AA division.
Kunming MR's independent tank regiment.
Independent tank battalion (?)
12th border defense regiment.

Guangxi front
- Lang Son : 55th corps, 127th div, 161st div, 148th div in Dong Dang; 128th div in Loc Binh.
- Cao Bang : 41st corps, 42nd corps, 129th div, 150th div, 160th div, 162nd div, 58th div.
- Quang Ninh : independent div of Guangxi.
- 6 tank regts and 1 tank btn.
- 1st artillery div.
- 70th AA div.

Yunnan front
- Hoang Lien Son (or Lao Cai) : 13rd corps, 14th corps, 32nd div, 149 div.
- Lai Chau : 31st div, 33rd div.
- Ha Giang : 12th border-defense regt.
- Independent tank regt of Kunming MR.
- 4th artillery div.
- 65th AA div.
- 4 regts and 3 btns of border-defense troops.
- 5 engineer regts.
- 1 railway regt.
- 2 fighter divs (not take part).

Total : 28 inf divs, 6 tank regts and 1 tank btn, 2 artillery divs and 39 artillery regts, 2 AA divs.

How I see it:

For Vietnam, they had a lot of soldiers with good training after winning their war of independence.
Given their own history, they regarded China as a threat (I once asked a ethnic Vietnamese wether she feels hostility towards americans, she awnsered: "Not really , we fought the Chinese for millenia, the Mongols for centuries, the french for decades and the Americans only for a couple of years, and I actually get along with Chinese."), and wished to protect themselfs and expand their own power base.
Cambodia was a nice target for them, close, ethnically related, and the Vietnamese had a really good Casus Belli given the atrocities of the Pol Pot regime.
Seeing China as their main threat, they looked to other major powers to support them.
As an alliance with the USA was well, out of the question, the Soviet Union was their prefered choice.
So, Vietnam got their "Soviet insurance card" and decided that Vietnam would look nice on a map with Cambodia incorporated in it.
The PRC wouldnt have any of that, and somehow decided that Pol Pot was a sattelite worth defending.
They invaded, made some progress and choose to retreat in the face of Soviet pressure (Njet, leave our Vietnamese Satelite alone Beijing!) , in addition, the Vietnamese began to transport their Crack troops to the area, who would have been more nasty than their militias.

Vietnam attacked Cambodia for many reasons, mainly because of the frequenty incursions into Vietnam territory and the perceived multi-front threat involving China and Cambodia.

"Retreat in the face of Soviet pressure" is highly unlikely since PRC announced its intention to punish Vietnam on Feb 15th, right after the end of the Sino-Soviet peace treaty.
Some consider this to be the main reason behind the attack, in a way, it's like China saying "I'm gonna beat up your ally and watch you do nothing."

Mightypeon said:

How I see it:
Cambodia was a nice target for them, close, ethnically related, and the Vietnamese had a really good Casus Belli given the atrocities of the Pol Pot regime.

Click to expand...

There's some genetic cross-over from conquest and migrations, but I wouldn't say they're ethnically related since Khmer is a distinct ethnic group from Viet/Kinh.

I am by no means an expert on the area, but from what I got they are closer related than Viet and Han people or Viet and Thai people.
Again I am no expert (and European to boot), but I can (optically) destinguish a Viet from a Han by looks with a decent confidence and a Viet from a Thai (especially if I hear them talking) with a fairly good confidence. I have no idea how to distinguish Cambodians from Vietnamese.

Can we agree on "relativly related so public resistance shouldnt be that bad"?

Cheers,

Mightypeon

Mightypeon said:

How I see it:

For Vietnam, they had a lot of soldiers with good training after winning their war of independence.
Given their own history, they regarded China as a threat (I once asked a ethnic Vietnamese wether she feels hostility towards americans, she awnsered: "Not really , we fought the Chinese for millenia, the Mongols for centuries, the french for decades and the Americans only for a couple of years, and I actually get along with Chinese."), and wished to protect themselfs and expand their own power base.
Cambodia was a nice target for them, close, ethnically related, and the Vietnamese had a really good Casus Belli given the atrocities of the Pol Pot regime.
Seeing China as their main threat, they looked to other major powers to support them.
As an alliance with the USA was well, out of the question, the Soviet Union was their prefered choice.
So, Vietnam got their "Soviet insurance card" and decided that Vietnam would look nice on a map with Cambodia incorporated in it.
The PRC wouldnt have any of that, and somehow decided that Pol Pot was a sattelite worth defending.
They invaded, made some progress and choose to retreat in the face of Soviet pressure (Njet, leave our Vietnamese Satelite alone Beijing!) , in addition, the Vietnamese began to transport their Crack troops to the area, who would have been more nasty than their militias.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on most part regarding to the viet war, however Vietnam did not fought the entire war with just their militias.. they had some of their most elite divisions behind to fight the Chinese and that they had aid from Soviet in term of weapony and such.
Both nations are VERY alike in many ways, both are communism based soceity and very similar in fighting styles. Vietnam is almost like a mirror image of China except its smaller and weaker. Both armies are composed of troops that are not afraid of death and would not give a second of thought when the time is there for them to give their lives for the party(basis of communisty military strength) which is why both side lost so much men even before any real occupation take place

sidewinder01 said:

I agree with you on most part regarding to the viet war, however Vietnam did not fought the entire war with just their militias.. they had some of their most elite divisions behind to fight the Chinese and that they had aid from Soviet in term of weapony and such.
Both nations are VERY alike in many ways, both are communism based soceity and very similar in fighting styles. Vietnam is almost like a mirror image of China except its smaller and weaker. Both armies are composed of troops that are not afraid of death and would not give a second of thought when the time is there for them to give their lives for the party(basis of communisty military strength) which is why both side lost so much men even before any real occupation take place

Click to expand...

i think vietnam had 3 of its 4 elite divisions fighting the PLA. at least one got wiped out.

yeah when east asian armies fight each other it always get really nasty lol.

I think that it is, to an extent a myth that "communists" value their lifes less than "non communists". When communist forces enjoyed qualitiative superiority (like f.e. the Soviet Union during their invasion of Japanese controlled Manchuria), they were very frugal with spending the lives of their soldiers.

The thing is, drastic differences in equipment result in drastic differences in casulties. If you wish to win, or rather not loose, as the underequipped side, you have to be able to accept the casulties you receive and focus on the strategic means of defeating the enemy.

Both the Vietnamese and the Chinese "guerillia" doctrines were shaped on the battlefield, both of these people faced roughly similiar challenges (technologically superior Imperialist/Colonialist foe in a civil war situation) and both came to similiar means of overcoming this foe.

(successfull) Battlefield doctrines are usually defined by your own assets compared to the assets of the enemy, not by your political system (although your political system may shape the assets available).

Mightypeon said:

I think that it is, to an extent a myth that "communists" value their lifes less than "non communists". When communist forces enjoyed qualitiative superiority (like f.e. the Soviet Union during their invasion of Japanese controlled Manchuria), they were very frugal with spending the lives of their soldiers.

The thing is, drastic differences in equipment result in drastic differences in casulties. If you wish to win, or rather not loose, as the underequipped side, you have to be able to accept the casulties you receive and focus on the strategic means of defeating the enemy.

Both the Vietnamese and the Chinese "guerillia" doctrines were shaped on the battlefield, both of these people faced roughly similiar challenges (technologically superior Imperialist/Colonialist foe in a civil war situation) and both came to similiar means of overcoming this foe.

(successfull) Battlefield doctrines are usually defined by your own assets compared to the assets of the enemy, not by your political system (although your political system may shape the assets available).

Click to expand...

I think it also has something to do with the culture. In the West, you become a POW, you come home a hero. Giving up one's live would be considered an ultimate sacrifice. In the east asia, you become a POW, you are seen as a traitor. You go to battle for your country. If you surrender, you abandon your country, thus a traitor. You are expected to die for your country. This becomes a minimal requirement for a soilder. This has been the case ever since ancient times, long before communism. One good example would be Li Ling in the Western Han dynasty. He surrendered to the Huns after valiantly fought against numerically superior enemy for days. Yet, he was immediately declared as a traitor after the news of his surrendering got back to the emperor. Everybody said he should commit suicide and maintain his family honor (he's the grandson of famed Li Guang).