Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
China Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: List of PLA Victories!
HanWuDi    1/1/2005 4:10:11 PM
WWII: PLA forces waged a war of attrition upon the Japanese Army in Manchuria and Northern China. This conflict concluded with over 800,000 Japanese KIA and over 1,000,000 wounded. Along with the Nationalists in the south, the combined forces eventually stopped the Japanese advance and regained China proper. Of the 4 million Japanese troops(80% of the entire Japanese military) who invaded China, three million went home in body bags or as cripples. Just in terms of military body count, China inflicted 3 times as many Japanses casualties as the rest of the Allies COMBINED. Chinese Civil War: The PLA defeats a better equipped KMT army that was many times it's own size. And siezes control of the entire country. Korean War: PLA preserved the soverignty of North Korea against U.S forces. American forces set out to unify the two Koreas under the puppet government of the south, but instead had the longest single retreat in it's entire military history. Contrary to popular(US) opinions, the PLA never had any designs on South Korea, the point of the entire war was to keep North Korea as a buffer zone between U.S forces and China's industrial heartland of the north. From a military standpoint the casualties were fairly even, 500,000 Chinese KIA for 450,000 US/UN KIA. From a strategic point of view, China succeded in it's main objective while the U.S did not, thus China won. Invasion of Tibet: The PLA invaded and conquored a country the size of Western Europe in 16 days. Sino-Indian War: Chinese forces stormed Indian strongholds across the Himalayas in a series of lightening raids. The conclusion of the war allowed China to annex a piece of Indian Territory as large as the entire Korean Peninsula. From a military standpoint, the war was brilliantly executed. Over 15,000 Indians killed and 60,000 captured versus 300 Chinese casualties. Paracel Conflict: The PLA engaged in naval warfare with the south Vietnamese in the Paracel archipelago. After a initial setback, the PLA troops stormed the main islands with the help of naval bombardment and close air support with J-7s and took over the entire archipelago. In terms of Casualties: South Vietnam had over 500 KIA, while China suffered a total of 72 KIA. Sino-Vietnamese War: The PLA's most painful war. The initial 3-week invasion was a disaster costing the lives of 20,000 PLA troops. But the decision was made to fight a long term war of attrition against Vietnam, and the war lasted for 10 years. Finally, the cost of war became too heavy for Vietnam's economy to bear. It's national infrastructure collapsed, and the agrarian economy could no longer feed it's army. Vietnam capitulated after a decade of hard fighting. Thus, China annexed the entire northern Vietnamese border region(2500 sq kms) and gained the client states of Laos and Cambodia. Vietnam, once with the most powerful military in southeast asia, is not reduced to an improverished nation with a hollow force of an army. Conclusion: The PLA has won EVERY, SINGLE war that it has ever fought. Lesson of the day: Nobody messes with the PLA and gets away from it.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7
LA688i    RE:List of PLA Victories!   4/11/2005 9:20:16 AM
First, I'd like to point out that the Chinese did NOT inflict all, or indeed most, of the casualties on the Japanese in China in WWII. The Americans and British, and KMT did most of the fighting in China I would also like to point out that the list of PLA casualties is curiously absent from the post. I cannot dipute the second war, except to say that Chiang Kai-shek (forgive any butchering of the name)was a bit of an idiot in dealing with the communists. I have a very hard time believing that China had no designes on N.Korea, but I am willing to give Mao the benift of the doubt. It is important to remmember that A. MacArthur's objective was destroyed by the Chinese, not the Truman's. Truman wanted to restore S. Korea, and MacArthur wanted to take over all of Korea. That's why he was fired. B. the actual estimation of Chinese casualties was 900,000, NOT 500,000. 520,000 N. Koreans also died. C. At the point of the truce, the US had forced the Chinese back to the 38th Parallel, from which they had been driven a second time, and were advancing steadily again. China beats Tibet. Tibet, of course, was well known for it's military might at the time. (I'm being sarcastic, by the way) I applaud China's tactics, but am tempted to believe that China, once again, covered up the number of casualties they took. As to the Paracel Conflict, what was this setback? How many Chines lives did it cost? In the Sino-Vietnamese war, China withdrew and BOTH sides claim victory. link Conclusion: Not counting the Sino-Vietnamese war (because both sides claim victory) and the Civil war, (How can China lose it's civil war?!), China has only had three victories, against India, Tibet, and South Vietnam. It has yet to go up against a nation like the US which has such a clear lead in technology and training. In the 1950's there was little or no technology gap. Now, there is a rather large one in favor of the US, and the only way the chinses are catching up is by spying (perfectly acceptable)stealing, breaking trade agreements, and other underhanded tactics.
 
Quote    Reply

Taliban Killer    Didn't Mao's son die in Korea?   4/28/2005 6:43:19 PM
I heard somewhere that Mao's son was killed in Korea. Can anybody confirm that? To the pathetic knife rattling small-dicked chinamen on this page: don't forget that America only lost 35,000 KIA in Korea vs China's 800,000 or so (Including Mao's son, but who is counting anyway). Don't count the KIA from the ROK+UN prior to China's entry into the war. Russia destroyed the Japanses Manchurian army in 10 days (1945), something that the KMD nor the PLA could achieve in 10 years. And don't claim that this is because the Japanese were weakned by years of war. Even in 1938, Jukov kicked the Japs ass while they having a love-fest of ass-raping China (Were was the PLA then? Where were was the PLA when little Chinese girls were being tossed on bayonettes?). The Chinese would have been EXTERMINATED had the Japanses not attacked Uncle Sam. As to those bogus KIA self-congratulating figures you cite, the American Occupation Administration of Japan, came up with a number of 1.5 million KIA or MIA in WW2. Finally, if the PLA is so strong, why don't they just attack Taiwan right now? So take my advice, shut your trap, work hard, and take your enzyte, that will make you happy. Being destroyed for the sake of pride won't.
 
Quote    Reply

johnboy    RE:List of PLA Victories!   4/29/2005 1:52:26 PM
Hahahaha! "Along with the Nationslists in the South!" What a clever way to spin that. The KMT did MOST of the fighting in China during WW2. Please spare me Mao's propaganda. The PLA did beat the KMT... basically because of the KMT leadership was dumb enough to do what the arrogant and even more idiot American leadership asked them to. Victory is often about being ready to exploit your opponent's idiotic mistakes. Hahahah! Now I know you are smoking Mao's propaganda pipe. YES, the PLA did achieve its strategic goal of maintaining a buffer between China and the West in the penninsula. However, it was at enormous cost and not even remotely even. The only way you can get a UN casualty total of 450,000 is to include literally EVERY SINGLE RoK CIVILIAN who was killed or wounded. Your statistics are just plain wrong. The US lost about 33,000 men KIA, the UN about 3,000, and the RoK about 200,000. Meanwhile, Chinese MILITARY casualties were at least 500,000 KIA in their own right, with a further 350,000 KIA for the North Koreans. Some estimates place total Communist KIA as high as 2-3 million. I'll trust a Communist source only after the government falls and outsiders get unfettered access to their archives. 300 Chinese casualties against the Indians? What BS. Both sides lost between 500-1000 men. The Chinese accomplished bupkis. STALEMATE. The Chinese, by all measures, LOST its border war with Vietnam. It failed in its strategic goal (or did you forget about this) to prop up the crumbling Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. The PLA was humiliated, suffering enourmous casualties against the army of a much smaller nation. The Sino-Vietnamese War was like China's equivalent of the Soviet-Finnish War, except that the Soviets eventually managed to achieve their territorial ambitions and win the war. Oh, and your forgot the Sino-Soviet border conflicts, another one the PLA lost. So, the record is 2-2-3. One of those victories was against the KMT, but was hardly decisive because the KMT is alive, well, and quite wealthy over in Taiwan. The other was against Tibet, which had something like one mortar and 40 bolt action rifles at the time of the invastion. Oooo... so impressive. Meanwhile, against every other opponent, the Chinese have either lost or achieved stalemate, and taken enormous casualties in the process.
 
Quote    Reply

johnboy    RE:Another troll!   4/29/2005 2:11:43 PM
Not just another troll... but better still, a hardline Maoist troll!
 
Quote    Reply

johnboy    RE:Kadyet's nonsensical statements   4/29/2005 2:55:33 PM
[In WWII, Chinese forces (PLA and KMT) destroyed 75% of the invading army of Japan, this is fact.] Note how once again, in a thread about the PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY, our Maoist Troll declines to excluse the Kuomintang from his estimates (which are false). So, once again, it must be pointed out that the Kuomintang did the clear majority of the fighting against the Japanese in China. Where are the heirs of the Kuomintang today? Taiwan. Good luck in getting that island back, Mr. Maoist. You'll need it. [If America had merely wanted to keep South Korea free, the Inchon landing would've been a strategic liability and the later invasion into N.K would've been completely unnecessary.] B.S. In Inchon landing was meant to destroy North Korea's army, as you say. To free South Korea, that was necessary. The alternative would have been costly frontal attacks from Pusan. I can tell you think like a Communist: the idea of a risky, daring amphibious flanking manuver looks so alien to you it must automatically imply imperialist intentions. Logically, the United States government made a decision to eliminate the North Korean threat once and for all. You simply don't go halfway around the world, fight a major war, and suffer all those casualties, and then let the aggressor off the hook. Stupidly, we then ignored multiple warnings from China to back off. Incidentally, anyone who says the world is a better place with the North Korean regime still in power is basically supporting systematic crimes against humanity. But then again, you are an obvious Maoist. It must come with the territory. [No one is sure of whether a war was even fought in this case. The only documented "skirmish" occured on a 300 meter long sandbar in the middle of a frozen river between around 100 Russian and Chinese Soldiers on border patrol. The result was 31 dead Russians and 47 dead Chinese soldiers. It wasn't even an organized battle ,much less a war. As far as gossip goes there are two varients of the story.] Hahahahah! I wonder what pre-Deng textbook you got that out of!
 
Quote    Reply

Ozamist    RE:List of PLA Victories!   5/13/2005 8:18:05 PM
ok while i have this free time in my camp using my laptop :P my mum bought me b4 i have to go off on another scouting regiment. Pla did not have 50 thousand casultys in the korean chinese war they had over 2.5million dead thats alot more then mr chinese propagandist hanwudi and when he considers un he means the civvilians they murderd and maimed just like kim jong did because they belive in a religon like buddha are jesus christ man you ppl are really sick you know that but do you remember that you asked russia for help and he said no i dont want to start ww3 over a island mou was doing good for the first year untill mac left then you had a real genreal leading the us forces and you had grown ignorant and spread your troops to thin and your supplys and food could not reach you so what does that mean you got beaten by us you and evrey other person wanted to end the korean war but until years of yelling us agreed us wanted the whole korea but we said nah lets stop let the chinese army withdraw and we did but really you think china can beat the us with a rifel from the 50s? still in use today when only the oldies get the training and bullet proof vest hahaha good one commie hey you seen what happend to russia id stop if i was you you get more money being a greedy capitlyst ok thats mine hey ill try to get time to read sum more later
 
Quote    Reply

eu4ea    PLA.. victories?   5/16/2005 2:45:05 AM
Geez, I think there are some basic facts inherent to the PLA that are being overlooked here; - It's only about 60 years old - It has only fought on it's own territory or very close to it - It is by *far* the largest army in the region - It is the army of the most populous nation in the world So, taking that, where does that leave claims of great tactical and strategic insight by the PLA. - Beating the japanese. I do understand that this is a matter of national pride, but the figures you give are *way* off the mark. Not even close. In many senses, it is reasonable to say that the Red Army beat 3/4th of the Wermarch, and the other fights (english, canadian, american, aussie) were secondary to this struggle. The same is *not* true of the various chinese armies fighting the japanese. Not even all of them taken together (KMT, Warlords and PLA), and certainly *NOT* the PLA alone. That's nuts. Moving on from that, two classes of PLA campaigns remain; - Beating up on smaller, poor regional neighbours - Confronting world powers (US, USSR) On the first count, indeed, the PLA is a great success. The land army of the most populous country in the world is able to succesfully mount land campaigns against it's neighbours (Tibet, Vietnam, India...) or against it's own people (Tianamen, the ethnic minorities) Well, great. Congratulations. However, I dont think that proves much other than the willingness of the PLA to send land attacks against neighbours and it's own people. On the second count, the record is also very mixed. The sino-soviet border incidents were minor firefights, at most a few hundrend on either side. Dont know where all that stuff about atomic mines and 000s tanks came from, but it's silly. What happened was 1-2-3: 1- There were border firefights, 2- China got spooked, and 3- Subsequently developed closer ties with the West, specially the US. Good stuff and ultimatelly a good decision, but it's less that a shining example of the PLAs fighting capacity... The Korean war, though arguably that was the PLAs finest hour. The casualty ratios cited are nuts, thou - US combat losses were between 38 and 50 thousand, dramatically less than the Chineese side. And as for objectives - well, harder to say. I frankly dont believe that the North woke up one day and decided to invade without the knowledge (and approval) of Beijing. C'mon; you are small dirt poor communist country right next door to the largest communist country on earth. So you decide to invade your other neighbour without making sure the Chinese are ok with this? That's silly. As is silly to think that the US would not have prefered reunification under democracy as the outcome of that war. Both sides failed to achieve their objectives - though the chinese took far heavier losses in their failure. In light of all that, the 'perfect' combat record of the PLA is actually a lot less perfect. Which is fine, and is always something to be remembered - partiotism is great, but countries that think they have "perfect" combat records tend to get nasty surprises. Be humble, dont let that happen to you.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy