anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) (07/27/90)
From: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) In 1979 China was involved in a major conflict with Vietnam. The Chinese Army made a very small penetration into Vietnam but suffered many casualties. Many experts pointed out that the Chinese Army was then poorly organised and also poorly armed. In many ways this was the result of Mao's intervention to ensure that the Army will always be loyal to the party. In the last ten years there have been steady reforms in the Chinese Army. Many of the officers considered themselves as professional soldiers. However political education still plays an important part in the development of the Army especially after the events of June 4th. The question is can the new generation officers make a difference to the current political situation ? Is the Chinese Army actually capable of defending China in a conventional war, considering her poor preformance in Vietnam ? The new Chinese Army has proved that it is capable of surpressing the Chinese people but can it do anything else ? Anthony -- Anthony Lee (Humble PhD student) (Alias Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) (08/01/90)
From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) In article <1990Jul27.015503.21955@cbnews.att.com> anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes: > >In 1979 China was involved in a major conflict with Vietnam. The >Chinese Army made a very small penetration into Vietnam but suffered >many casualties. Many experts pointed out that the Chinese Army was >then poorly organised and also poorly armed. In many ways this was the >the current political situation ? Is the Chinese Army actually capable >of defending China in a conventional war, considering her poor preformance sorry, but you're comparing apples and oranges. there is a vast amount of difference between an invading force and a defending force. first, consider logistical problems. the invading force not only has to fight and secure territory but it must also provide it's own logistical needs... possibly transporting the needed supplies/replacements through hostile territory. witness napoleon and hitler. the defender, on the other hand, has no such problems... resupply/reinforcement is an 'easier' task because they are operatiing on their own turf. also, morale considerations should be taken into account. people who are defending their homeland would tend to fight harder than those attacking it. the US was forced to withdraw from VietNam as well... should we ask the same questions of our armed forces as you are asking of the chinese?? /*** woody **************************************************************** *** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I... *** *** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd *** ****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/
anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) (08/05/90)
From: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) writes: >In article <1990Jul27.015503.21955@cbnews.att.com> anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes: >> [stuff deleted about China-Vietnam 1979 conflict...] >first, consider logistical problems. the invading force not only has to fight >and secure territory but it must also provide it's own logistical needs... >possibly transporting the needed supplies/replacements through hostile >territory. witness napoleon and hitler. The Chinese army didn't exactly have a long way to go. I forgotten how far they penetrate into Vietname but I would be very surprised if it is much more than 10km. As for logistical needs well Vietnam is right next door to China and if the Chinese army can't bring supplies in for such a short distance then it must have real transport problems. >the defender, on the other hand, has no such problems... resupply/reinforcement >is an 'easier' task because they are operatiing on their own turf. also, >morale considerations should be taken into account. people who are defending >their homeland would tend to fight harder than those attacking it. That's true, I agree the Vietnamese would have more "push" to repel the Chinese army. However the Chinese army of the time is supposed to be well drilled in discipline, the finer points of communism and loyalty to the party. Therefore I doubt if morale could have lead to their defeat. I think it is more because of poor organisation and the lack of a proper command structure. (The command structure was changed by Mao and officers don't wear any badges etc. to indicate rank) >the US was forced to withdraw from VietNam as well... should we ask the same >questions of our armed forces as you are asking of the chinese?? Don't you think that part of the reason why the US was forced out Vietnam was public opinion about the war in Vietnam ? In 1979, the majority of the households in China don't have TVs and public opinion don't count in China. -- Anthony Lee (Michelangelo teenage mutant ninja turtle) (Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
zrra07@crx34.UUCP (Randall R. Appleton) (08/06/90)
From: zrra07@crx34.UUCP (Randall R. Appleton) In article <1990Jul31.223503.6119@cbnews.att.com> eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) writes: >In article <1990Jul27.015503.21955@cbnews.att.com> anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes: >>In 1979 China was involved in a major conflict with Vietnam. The >>Chinese Army made a very small penetration into Vietnam but suffered >>many casualties. Many experts pointed out that the Chinese Army was >>then poorly organised and also poorly armed. In many ways this was the >>the current political situation ? Is the Chinese Army actually capable >>of defending China in a conventional war, considering her poor preformance > >first, consider logistical problems. the invading force not only has to fight >and secure territory but it must also provide it's own logistical needs... >possibly transporting the needed supplies/replacements through hostile >territory. witness napoleon and hitler. Ahhh, no. The Chinese didn't get very far at all in their invasion. In other words, the never got vary far from their supply. The Americans in Vietnam seemed to have all the supply they needed. If in fact there were supply problems (and I'm sure their were) the problems were of an organbizational and not a transaportation nature (that's an opinion, not a statement of fact.) In any case, the problems with the Chinese army were not supply. Unlike Hitler or Napolean, they did not go literally thousands of miles across an empty plain into the Russian winter. In fact, they didn't get anywhere at all! Randy
jwtlai@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai) (08/07/90)
From: jwtlai@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim W Lai) In article <1990Aug6.031148.2110@cbnews.att.com> zrra07@crx34.UUCP (Randall R. Appleton) writes: >In an article (Wayne Wood) writes: >>In an article (Anthony Lee) writes: >>>In 1979 China was involved in a major conflict with Vietnam. The >>>Chinese Army made a very small penetration into Vietnam but suffered >>>many casualties. Many experts pointed out that the Chinese Army was >>>then poorly organised and also poorly armed. In many ways this was the >>>the current political situation ? Is the Chinese Army actually capable >>>of defending China in a conventional war, considering her poor preformance >> >>first, consider logistical problems. the invading force not only has to fight >>and secure territory but it must also provide it's own logistical needs... > >The Chinese didn't get very far at all in their invasion. In other words, >the never got vary far from their supply. The Chinese army is not structured to be able to perform a lightning invasion. According to "How to Make War" by James F. Dunnigan, there is a pervasive lack of equipment in the Chinese army, the equipment they have being obsolete by Western and Russian standards. Infantry must walk, as trucks are reserved for moving heavy equipment. Unlike the Vietnamese army, the Chinese army also lacked recent combat experience. The use of political reliability as a criterion for promotion also reduces effectiveness somewhat. To quote: "This has produced mediocre performance in border battles with combat-experienced Vietnamese troops... Because of the lack of strategic mobility, the Chinese army is primarily a defensive force." As a footnote, formal ranks have been reinstated in the Chinese army.
anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) (08/15/90)
From: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) zrra07@crx34.UUCP (Randall R. Appleton) writes: >In article <1990Jul31.223503.6119@cbnews.att.com> eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood) writes: >>In article <1990Jul27.015503.21955@cbnews.att.com> anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes: >>>In 1979 China was involved in a major conflict with Vietnam. The [stuff about Chinese army invading Vietnam deleted] >>first, consider logistical problems. the invading force not only has to fight >>and secure territory but it must also provide it's own logistical needs... >>possibly transporting the needed supplies/replacements through hostile >>territory. witness napoleon and hitler. >Ahhh, no. >The Chinese didn't get very far at all in their invasion. In other words, >the never got vary far from their supply. Exactly, China is right next door to Vietnam. In fact the border between China and Vietnam is only a small distance from the port of Guangzhou which is immediately North of Hongkong, there are major rail networks and shipping to bring in more supplies and fresh troops. >The Americans in Vietnam seemed to have all the supply they needed. If in >fact there were supply problems (and I'm sure their were) the problems >were of an organbizational and not a transaportation nature (that's an >opinion, not a statement of fact.) So supply was not a problem for the Americans and is it morale ? The Americans were in Vietnam from about 65 to 72, that's a long time even by WWII standards. How long was China in Vietnam ? Much less than a year and so if morale is supposed to go down over a long period of time than surely there's no cause for the Chinese army to lose their morale ? >In any case, the problems with the Chinese army were not supply. Unlike >Hitler or Napolean, they did not go literally thousands of miles across >an empty plain into the Russian winter. In fact, they didn't get anywhere >at all! That's right, even if the Vietnamese employed scorch earth tactics it wouldn't make any difference. This bring me to the question of "what was the objective ?" of the Chinese army in 79 ? They didn't exactly forced Vietnam out of Cambodia by their invasion ? Why didn't the Chinese army just continue to advance until the Vietnamese were willing to withdraw from Cambodia ? Did the Chinese army meet such opposition that it couldn't go any further ? -- Anthony Lee (Michaelangelo teenage mutant ninja turtle) (Time Lord Doctor) ACSnet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz TEL:+(61)-7-371-2651 Internet: anthony@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au +(61)-7-377-4139 (w) SNAIL: Dept Comp. Science, University of Qld, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) (08/23/90)
From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) The Chinese Army was decimated by the Vietnamese in 1979 -- and not by the regular Vietnamese Army, but by LOCAL MILITIA!!! In the first four days of the conflict, the Chinese suffered over 60,000 casualties and lost a full 25% of their armored units. Some ten years prior to this folly, the Chinese crossed the Soviet border in order to reclaim some dirt. The Soviets, after cooly contemplating their options for a few days, summarily drove the Chinese back to the border and into China, destroying each and every standing edifice within a mile of the border. The Chinese pose a strategic threat to no one. Though it would be impossible to hold China without invoking genocidal policies, the level of sophistication of Chinese forces is so low that they pose very little threat to even their neighbors. As for the Chinese ICBM force (four liquid-propelled two-stagers that would probably do more damage to China than to anyone else), who's worried about it? The only thing the Chinese want from America is trade -- and not mouthwash or deodorant, as American economists tend to think (they see China as two billion yawning armpits and thirty-two billion teeth yearning for American hygienic products). All the Chinese want from America is high-tech systems in small quantities so they can retroengineer them to suit their own needs. |/|/|/|/| | | | | | (o o) C _) | ,___/ | / /______ "I'm outta here, man!" -shane d deichman