Communist tactics in Korean War

[ever4244]

what can make a tactic communist

I am a chinese and I just wonder what can make a tactic communist. If you ever read ancient tactic book in china ,you may learn why the US in its prime can t beat a newly borned destitute country.For the the war is not limited to the firepower,lineup, logistics. they also rely on the moral , morale and stratagem,in the war history of china, battle is not win because the number or weapon but because the cunning plan , for instance: lure enemy into trap ,intimidate to extinguish their will of fight , illusion to confuse them . because chinese thought battle is more a spiritual one than a physical one .
and plus , the our division is more capable of single fight, so we dare to pierce into the enemy,make circular movement and surround them, and even with out vehicle , our troop can be very haste on the mountain area of korea.
Because the fire of US is very dread, we have to make surprise attack in the night , partly because US soldier will likely give up if ever being surround. but if our unit being surrounded they will keep on fighting. by the way I have to admit , that US did not put all its stronghth in korea, and from what i know ,our is casualty about 100-200k and our total number is more than 1m.

I have to admit at that time , our soldier fight with extreme morale and zeal ,but they are not the swarming orc you thought , each of them has their own will. but willing to die for the course -------even though today in china we debate hotly on whether is worthy to fight for DPRK for it turn out to be a tyranny to its people. but at time what they thought is fight for the communist international and helping korea people. The soldiers are all good youngmen ,even to their enemy , they ve never mistreat prison of war and never being rude to civilian. it s really a shame to see they dead for a worthless conflict between soviet camp and US camp.

 

[isthvan]

North Korean and Chinese accomplishments at the beginning of conflict have more to do whit sorry state US armed forces were at that time then whit anything else…

Thanks to nuclear threat doctrine US has completely neglect it’s conventional forces to the point at which they couldn’t be considered as credible fighting force(you can look at downsizing of army and marine corps during post WWII period, state of readiness for conventional forces etc.).

Later during the war things become better but if US forces were in state that they were at the end of WWII Korean war could have different outcome…

 

[Chrom]

I

German and its Allied is around 2-2.5 million (German alone is 1.6) VS Russia is 12 million. Means 1: 4.5. Bcoz Russian doing the Human wave face the effective MG-34/42 MG. U can see it in Enemy in The Gates

Sorry m8, BS.
Care to explain why Germany surrended if they suffered such FEW losses??? I mean, total population on Soviet side and on the German side was almost equal, and if we throw in other Axis states than we'll see what they had in fact much more population than USSR, and much, much more workers, peasants, factories, etc from captured states. So, why Germans lost if they'd lose so few mens? Moreover, from 1939 to 1945 Germany had reqruited 22 millions in they army - and thats not counting various "helps" , "nations" and "volks" divisions, and not counting Axis states. On May 1945 Germans had about 4 millions in they army - WHERE was all other mans? WHY Hitler had to send 14-years old boys from Hitlerjugend under russian tanks if Germany suffered only 1.6 millions casualities?
Btw, Soviet Army lost 11.5 millions + 0.5 millions what was already reqruited but didnt mannaged to arrive to they designated reqruit points. Of them 1.8 millions was returned alive from POV and 0.9 millions was again reqruited on the liberated territories - so the total ammound of deads in Soviet army was about 8 millions from all causes .

P.S. Human waves lost its effect after advention of MG. Simply as that.
Largely its a myth what have root in the fact what EVERY potent commander try to mass its forces in the break-in point to achive 5-to-1 or even 10-to-1 superiority. For other side this looks like human wave of mindless drones, and attackers indeed useally suffer more casualities than defenders during break-in phase. But such is universal art of war. If the attackers successed in breaking enemy lines, then its defenders who starts to suffer much heavy casualities, especeally in technic and wounded soldiers who couldnt be evacuated.

 

[Waylander]

Germany lost 3.5 million soldiers and 2.76 million civilians during WWII.

 

[Chrom]

Germany lost 3.5 million soldiers and 2.76 million civilians during WWII.

Yet again explain me why they surrended then. My sources said what German army alone lost 4.5 (Btw, even 3.5 millions implies only 1:2 ratio for losses, especeally if we count axis allies and USA&Co involvment - not bad after surpise attack) millions as dead, but that still dont explain why they had to send 14-year old boys against russian tanks. But i have a hint for you: 7.5 millions was captured as POW. Would they treated as "good" as russian POW in german captivity, i'll bet you could add another 3 millions to german army losses, and god knows how many millions to other axis allies loses. This particular ratio - i.e. 1:1 for dead vs captured, was held true for both USSR and Axis side throught the war. The difference thought was what most captured soldiers USSR lost in 1941 and 1942 in surprising attack, and most german POW's was captured in 1942 at Stalingrad and in 1945 after german lines starts to completely break down and german soldiers lost the will to fight.

 

[Waylander]

You forget all the wounded soldiers which are not longer able to fight.

The reasons are:
Too many dead.
Too many POWs.
Too many wounded.
Too many civilians dead, wounded, without houses...
Many units lost cohesion.
Few ammo.
Few material.
Few food.
Few oil, petrol,...
Few supplies.
Few working tanks, artillery, guns,...
Less training.
Lost spirit.
Lost will to fight.

 

[Chrom]

You forget all the wounded soldiers which are not longer able to fight.

The reasons are:
Too many dead.
Too many POWs.
Too many wounded.
Too many civilians dead, wounded, without houses...
Many units lost cohesion.
Few ammo.
Few material.
Few food.
Few oil, petrol,...
Few supplies.
Few working tanks, artillery, guns,...
Less training.
Lost spirit.
Lost will to fight.

This is all true and right. Only one problem - why german army have "too many deads and POW's, too few technic, etc" if it's lost only, as you say, 2.5 or 3.5 millions? Of at least 22 millions reqruited? If it have 4:1 ratio? With about same manpool as USSR ? I already answered you why. Becouse the USSR - Axis army losses was no there near 4:1 as new "nazi" like to say or even 2.5:1 as a part of more "conservative" so-called public historicans like to tell. USSR - Axis army losses ratio was in vicinity of 1.3:1 - and that definitly implies what while Germany army was overall slightly better (much better in the begining, worse in the second half of WW2...), still no way any these "human waves" and other mindless moves could be a common tactic of Soviet army. I'm quite sure sometimes it happened on both sides, but it was RARE, and definitly such tactic would lead to court martial for any commander used it.

 

[Waylander]

I only talk about the real losses of the german divisions and civilians.
And we suffered enough and did too much wrong to surrender.
It was a bad time!
Okay?
Just looks at it like the Iraqi Army.
Hundreds of thousand of Iraqui soldiers surrended.
The german forces surrended after being defeated at nearly every frontier at german territory.
The german Wehrmacht only surrended after nearly the most part of germany was under allied control including Berlin.

 

[Chrom]

I only talk about the real losses of the german divisions and civilians.
And we suffered enough and did too much wrong to surrender.
It was a bad time!
Okay?
Just looks at it like the Iraqi Army.
Hundreds of thousand of Iraqui soldiers surrended.
The german forces surrended after being defeated at nearly every frontier at german territory.
The german Wehrmacht only surrended after nearly the most part of germany was under allied control including Berlin.

Again, this is right and true. I just pointed out what no way you can imply 4:1 or even 2:1 losses ratio for Germany - USSR army losses. To make it clear, as "losses" we shouldnt count only "deads" , but also "POW's". However, 4.5 millions german army dead was counted WITH POW's what died in captivity, same as USSR 8 millions army losses. We can however imply 10:1 civilian losses ratio - and most civilians was dead from allied bombers anyway.

 

[Manfred]

Chrom- Where are you getting your numbers from? The Hungarian, Romanian Italian and Finnish forces never amounted to more than 20% of Axis troop strength ACTIVELY employed on the Russian front. In terms of preformance, they varied widely, but seemed to amount to less than 10% of the effective strength.

Now, the numbers I am familiar with are these- 3.5 million German KIA vs. 20 Million Russian, about 8 million of those civilain (plus any number thrown in to transfer vistims of Stalin's purge to Hitler's death squads).

The basic thrust of CHrom's argument is the POW count, but the magority of those are men taken or turned over to the Soviets at war's end. The country collapsed, the Soviets had their pick of who was counted as a POW, I don't buy your agument for a second. * ANd even if I did, how do you count the 900,000 Russian soldiers who switched sides during the war, and fought for the axis? How do they fit into a neat, mathematical formula?

{yeah, I know, hell just froze over... I'm defending Waylander}

 

[Waylander]

Birthday and X-mas at once.

 

[Chrom]

Chrom- Where are you getting your numbers from? The Hungarian, Romanian Italian and Finnish forces never amounted to more than 20% of Axis troop strength ACTIVELY employed on the Russian front. In terms of preformance, they varied widely, but seemed to amount to less than 10% of the effective strength.

Now, the numbers I am familiar with are these- 3.5 million German KIA vs. 20 Million Russian, about 8 million of those civilain (plus any number thrown in to transfer vistims of Stalin's purge to Hitler's death squads).

The basic thrust of CHrom's argument is the POW count, but the magority of those are men taken or turned over to the Soviets at war's end. The country collapsed, the Soviets had their pick of who was counted as a POW, I don't buy your agument for a second. * ANd even if I did, how do you count the 900,000 Russian soldiers who switched sides during the war, and fought for the axis? How do they fit into a neat, mathematical formula?

{yeah, I know, hell just froze over... I'm defending Waylander}

About russian overall losses: last widely accepted figure was in the vicinity 26-27 million. But its a demographic losses - meaning the difference between projected population and present population minus newly born. I.e. its includes also higher mortality rate during the wartimes which is not directly related to german actions - for example, peoples what died in Sibiria from lack of medicine or food. The direct total losses which are directly related to german actions - such as civilian extermination on occupied territories or Leningrad blockade casualities plus army losses - is believed to be about 22 millions. Total USSR army losses are yet widely acknowledged at about 8.6 millions - this figure in from General Krivosheev group study and generally accepted as most accurated between all world historicans. His numbers are based on the open archives and was proved to be without major mistakes by many independed historicans working with same archives, including western ones. Of course, no sinlge historican can check all his numbers alone, but Krivosheev in his book have all losses divided by time, front, operation, etc. so most historicans check only the parts what they interest themselfes - for example, Kursk operation, Mars operation, Stalingrad defence, etc. So with USSR army its pretty clear picture thanks to excellent archives what remained intact. With german losses its much more blurry picture, partially becouse of f^$ed method what german commanders used to count they losses like counted losses only "in active fight units" of any given division (not counting "rear service losses"), or like not counting losses in various "help" units like technicans, national divisions, volkssturms, SS, luftwaffe, like not counting wounded what died a day after, etc. All these numbers could be still found, IF not more important problem - many archives was either burn stright away or got in varios hands - USSR, USA, Britain, etc. Thats a MAJOR problem, and also a reason why many western studies on german losses restrain itself by 31 December, 1944. For example, Muller-Hillebrand gives 3.5-4.5 figure, Wermacht itself during the war gave about 2 millions, other historicans 2-5.5 millions. A pretty good sum up of these versions was done by Overmans - here http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=1198&sid=6936dfa946adc56bc3f610059768cb9d is a brief summary.

Also , Overmans is pretty skeptical about Wehrmacht’s own numbers; Even during the war an internal Wehrmacht study found that the reported losses of the campaigns in Poland, France and Norway were only half of the actual losses! Consequently, Overmans dismiss the Wehrmacht numbers as not adequate enough. The reports of the Army Medical staff (OKH-Heeresarzt) isn’t included, because those are covering Army losses only.

So, we cant count it exactly, but i use one of the most lately accepted figures of total losses including german soldiers died in captivity. As a indirect proof i already pointed out on the numbers of reqruited vs left by May, 1945 soldiers - after all, 22-4 = 18 millions , and there is no way what less then 1/4 of them became dead. We can also see the same ratio with USSR army - 32 millions reqruited, 8 millions dead - and that was the winning army, which still maintained its fighting spirit & integrity.
Still, we should remeber also other Axis states - and 20% is NOT that few.
Again, i must point out that here is only DEAD counted. But to judge army strength & tactic we should count overall losses including POW's, as how many of them die later obviously have nothing to do with strategy, tactic and good fighting, and i wouldnt be so proud about higher "dead ratio" which includes dead POW's.
As for "who" counted as POW... yes, majority of german POW's was captured in April-May, allthought slightly less than million already was in soviet camps before January, 1945. But we can also say what majority of soviet POW's captured and losses inflicted was in the beginning of the war, after surprise attack, during the the initial disorder in Soviet army.
Btw, by Soviet High Command report, 1.9 million german soldiers was captured between January and May, 1945 - before capitulation. Some 1.3 was captured between surrended after capitulation.
After official german goverment data (they tryed to identify each fallen soldier name) which was publishied in 1985 - 3.1 millions soldiers was reported dead on the battlefield, 1.2 dead or missed in captivity - i.e overall 4.3 millions dead soldiers. This figure is the absolutely LOWER end of what we can expect relating true german army losses - but its probably not that far from true numbers.

P.S. Obviously, 900.000 russian/ukrainian/etc traitors are counted as dead soviet soldiers if they there KIA or executed by NKVD shortly after, or counted as alive and returned from captivity if they there imprisoned by NKVD or managed to hide. Either way, that only changes overall figure in favor of prising soviet commanders tactic, not contrary.

 

[gf0012-aust]

We can however imply 10:1 civilian losses ratio - and most civilians was dead from allied bombers anyway.

I'd be interested to see the data for that claim. Most post war data shows that allied bombing was ineffective as a vehicle of "total war".

I'd be extremely sceptical on any count that travelled into millions - as Dresden (or Coventry for that matter) attested to, and there were no other comparable examples of civilian deaths by tactical or strategic bombing.

 

[Chrom]

I'd be interested to see the data for that claim. Most post war data shows that allied bombing was ineffective as a vehicle of "total war".

I'd be extremely sceptical on any count that travelled into millions - as Dresden (or Coventry for that matter) attested to, and there were no other comparable examples of civilian deaths by tactical or strategic bombing.

There a lot of such examples - basicaly, most german cities was ruined by bombers and artillery. Dresden and Coventry quoted in all books only becouse of shock effect when a city full of civilians is leveled overnight - but also becouse of as seemenly _meaningless_ military move. Most other cities was bombed on daily basis - just not as intence each day. Few cities what left relatively intact was planned by allied High Command as future allied bases - for example Heidelberg, now a german major turistic town. Its _specificaly_ major turistic town becouse its one of few remained undestroyed german towns. Besides, bombing campany was ineffective in ruining the german industrial strength during 1943-1944, when mostly high-alt strategical bombing was conducted. Toward the end of war artillery and fronline bombers caused probably much greater civlilian losses, but also strategical bombers could routinely fly daily with increased payload and in much greater numbers. After you think about what whole Germany was a battle place in 1945, you will agree what about 2.5 millions civilian dead is not a such high and impossible number.

P.S. if you question me how much was dead from allied bombers only - then i dont have such date. My original sentence was more like what most civilian german losses was just a side effect of standard war operations.

 

[gf0012-aust]

After you think about what whole Germany was a battle place in 1945, you will agree what about 2.5 millions civilian dead is not a such high and impossible number.

I'd certainly agree with any number sub 2.5mill - I guess my main questioning was on the 10mill figure - that seemed excessively high and not reflective of post war data on the value and scale of allied bombing.

 

[Chrom]

I'd certainly agree with any number sub 2.5mill - I guess my main questioning was on the 10mill figure - that seemed excessively high and not reflective of post war data on the value and scale of allied bombing.

Huh? Where i said 10 millions? I talked about 1:10 ratio in civilian losses. I.e. If USSR lost close to 20 millions civilians under German occupation, Germany lost ~2 millions.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Huh? Where i said 10 millions? I talked about 1:10 ratio in civilian losses. I.e. If USSR lost close to 20 millions civilians under German occupation, Germany lost ~2 millions.

my apols, I misread your argument, :

 

[eckherl]

There a lot of such examples - basicaly, most german cities was ruined by bombers and artillery. Dresden and Coventry quoted in all books only becouse of shock effect when a city full of civilians is leveled overnight - but also becouse of as seemenly _meaningless_ military move. Most other cities was bombed on daily basis - just not as intence each day. Few cities what left relatively intact was planned by allied High Command as future allied bases - for example Heidelberg, now a german major turistic town. Its _specificaly_ major turistic town becouse its one of few remained undestroyed german towns. Besides, bombing campany was ineffective in ruining the german industrial strength during 1943-1944, when mostly high-alt strategical bombing was conducted. Toward the end of war artillery and fronline bombers caused probably much greater civlilian losses, but also strategical bombers could routinely fly daily with increased payload and in much greater numbers. After you think about what whole Germany was a battle place in 1945, you will agree what about 2.5 millions civilian dead is not a such high and impossible number.

P.S. if you question me how much was dead from allied bombers only - then i dont have such date. My original sentence was more like what most civilian german losses was just a side effect of standard war operations.

Some experts place the number of Russians killed at around 35 million and maybe even higher, that is counting military and civilians. German losses were around 4 million in military alone not counting civilians. Allied bombings on the Western front did have a major impact on the demise of the German soldiers and they did account for alot of civilian deaths in Germany. Russian air bombing did not have a major impact on the Eastern front. Russia paid dearly for every inch of soil that it won in that war. Even in 1945 when the Germans were in a route the Russians lost around 2.8 million killed and another half a million missing or captured. Russia has never been open to the amount of losses until 1991 when the Soviet Archives opened up to the Russian people and to the rest of the world. The Russian population motto after the great patriotic war was NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN NOR WILL IT EVER BE FORGOTTEN.

 

[Chrom]

Some experts place the number of Russians killed at around 35 million and maybe even higher, that is counting military and civilians. German losses were around 4 million in military alone not counting civilians. Allied bombings on the Western front did have a major impact on the demise of the German soldiers and they did account for alot of civilian deaths in Germany. Russian air bombing did not have a major impact on the Eastern front. Russia paid dearly for every inch of soil that it won in that war. Even in 1945 when the Germans were in a route the Russians lost around 2.8 million killed and another half a million missing or captured. Russia has never been open to the amount of losses until 1991 when the Soviet Archives opened up to the Russian people and to the rest of the world. The Russian population motto after the great patriotic war was NOTHING IS FORGOTTEN NOR WILL IT EVER BE FORGOTTEN.

Please, PLEASE show me your sourses about that 2.8 millions Red Army soldiers dead in 1945 alone? For any such "expert" i can find another "expert" what would place german losses to either 1 million or 10 million depending ofwhat i want to show. Ah, and then another "experts" what will place the soviet losses to anything from 7 millions to 70 millions. Thanks, but i will stick to credible and acknowledged historicans.

P.S. Initially, in 1945, Staling public speaked about 7 millions dead. In some sence, that was true. Its pretty close to true Soviet Army losses - it was impossible by that time to count civilian losses. Then by the end 50x, Khrushev publiced 20 millions total losses including civilians - and again, that was also close to true figure for deaths directly caused by german actions. Now, end figure is 26 millions demographic losses which also includes increased mortality rate. It absolutely cant be higher than that - as you cant suddently "create" millions peoples out of the air in post-war populaton counting just to cover war-time losses.

P.S. From 1941-1945 32 Millions was reqruited to Soviet Army, NKVD, etc. Meaning, almost half total USSR mens including childrens was reqruited to army. Almost 12 millions was there by May, 1945 in Army service. Obviously thought, childrens was not reqruited, and 50+ years old also wasnt. So you cant place the soviet army losses higher than 10-12 millions no matter what just from pure demographical POV.

 

[Manfred]

Chrom- your trying to have things both ways at the same time, and still come out on top. It won't work with me.

You claim 1 to 1 lose ratio, not possible! Russia had about triple the population of Germany. Simple logic dictates that in order for your war to last 3 years and 11 months, the basic effectiveness of the German war machine was close (but not close enough) to triple that of the Soviet war machine.

The actual battlefield superiority was 2.58, don't feel bad, Chrom, they bested us (USA) by 2.35.

I have statiscics to back me up, but today is Haloween, and I have to go out and have some fun! In the meantime, I would like to explain my point of view on this whole question. Why is the preformance of German troops so legendary? There are three possible reasons for this;

1) Are Germans geneticly superior? (total bullshit!)
2) is German culture better at adapting men to the rigors of war? (not likely, proir to 1813 they were not any better than any other soldiers)
3) Have the Germans evolved a better school of thought, and therefore better leadership, then other military establishments? (hmmm...)

I would rather find out what the truth is than win some argument. If you think I am on the wrong track here, please let me know.