Korean War- Retreat From Hell

[Thomas]

Just wondering how a supposed Veteran thought his own Commander-in-Chief was a Muslim?

actually Reagan was my commander and chief and a great leader he was.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

actually Reagan was my commander and chief and a great leader he was.

The US President is the same thing as the Commander-in-Chief right? So now for you, it is Obama.

 

[gambit]

It is him, and if you had paid attention to his past posts you will realize that the unit dezignation on the side of that truck is in keeping with that.

Let him continue to make a fool out of himself. Typical of the Chinese here is seemingly the inability to do basic research before shooting off one's mouth.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Let him continue to make a fool out of himself. Typical of the Chinese here is seemingly the inability to do basic research before shooting off one's mouth.

Still no proof that you are a veteran?

You're aware I'm sure, that pretending to be a veteran in the US is illegal?

What exactly is the reason you can post pictures of yourself (apparently) yet not take a quick 2-second video with your smartphone to prove it is you?

And even if we were to assume those pictures are of you, without proof, then they still don't prove anything at all.

 

[Fanling Monk]

My eyes are fine or at least I can see you(him?) trying to stretch tall next to a probably shortest girl in the group. LOL

 

[Thomas]

The US President is the same thing as the Commander-in-Chief right? So now for you, it is Obama.

no, he is my president but not commander and chief. commander and chief is part of a chain of command.

My perception of Obama being Muslim was my understanding that his father was Muslim therefor he was born Muslim under Muslim law. which this story in the New York times also states. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/opinion/12luttwak.html?_r=4&pagewanted=print

Maybe the Muslims of this forum can explain once and for all if Islam states you are born Muslim if the father is Muslim.

 

[gambit]

Still no proof that you are a veteran?

You're aware I'm sure, that pretending to be a veteran in the US is illegal?

What exactly is the reason you can post pictures of yourself (apparently) yet not take a quick 2-second video with your smartphone to prove it is you?

And even if we were to assume those pictures are of you, without proof, then they still don't prove anything at all.

Still no proof that you are Chinese?

Pretty much the only person who refuse to see the truth is YOU, conscript reject. The other Chinese will publicly align with your position out of racial necessity, but inside they know better.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Still no proof that you are Chinese?

Pretty much the only person who refuse to see the truth is YOU, conscript reject. The other Chinese will publicly align with your position out of racial necessity, but inside they know better.

Avoiding the question yet again.

What exactly is the reason you can post pictures of yourself (apparently) yet not take a quick 2-second video with your smartphone to prove it is you?

Is it because you stole the pictures from someone else? If so, then you should have stolen pictures from an actual veteran, that guy in the picture could have been anyone.

 

[ChinaToday]

Tactics of the Chinese Communists in the Korean War

The first job of Chinese Communist forces when they invaded North Korea [in autumn 1950] was to stop the United Nations advance, which was nearing the Yalu River.

Although extremely limiting in some respects, the Chinese dependence upon the backs of animals and soldiers liberated them from roads and permitted troops to fight anywhere they could walk, whether in front, on the side, or behind the enemy lines. UN forces, on the other hand, were tied to the roads because their supplies arrived by truck. The roads, therefore, were vulnerable to being cut by roadblocks.

During the Chinese civil war, Mao Zedong and his commanders had developed a highly effective method of dealing with more heavily armed Nationalist troops. Peng Dehuai now adapted these tactics to the Americans and their allies.

The Chinese tried whenever possible to infiltrate through enemy positions in order to plant a roadblock on the supply line, in hopes of inducing the enemy to retreat to regain contact with the rear. If UN forces stayed in position, the roadblocks still were useful in cutting off escape routes and supply.

In infiltration and assaults against front-line positions, the Chinese moved largely at night to avoid air strikes and reduce aerial observation. In attacks they tried to isolate individual outposts, usually platoons, by striking at the fronts, while at the same time attempting to outflank them. The purpose was to defeat forces in detail by gaining local superiority. If they could not destroy enemy positions, they hoped to induce the opponent to withdraw. When this failed, they got as close as possible to the enemy so that, when daylight came, U.S. aircraft would be unable to bomb them for fear of hitting friendly troops.

Advancing Chinese units generally followed the easiest, most accessible terrain in making their approaches: valleys, draws, or streambeds. As soon as they met resistance, they deployed, peeling off selected small units to engage the opposition. However, if they met no resistance, the whole column often moved in the darkness right past defensive emplacements deep into the rear of enemy positions. There were many examples of this in Korea. In some cases entire Chinese regiments marched in column formation into the UN rear.

Once fully committed, the Chinese seldom halted their attack, even when suffering heavy casualties. Other Chinese came forward to take the place of those killed or wounded. The buildup continued, often on several sides of the position, until they made a penetration ---either by destroying the position or forcing the defenders to withdraw. After consolidating the new conquest, the Chinese then crept forward against the open flank of the next platoon position. This combination of stealth and boldness, usually executed in darkness against small units, could result in several penetrations of a battalion front and could be devastating.

Since the Chinese tried to cut the defending force into small fractions and attack these fractions with local superiority in numbers, they favored the ambush over all other tactical methods. As a rule attacking Chinese forces ranged in size from a platoon to a company (50 to 200 men) and were built up continually as casualties occurred.

The best defense was for the UN force somehow to hold its position until daybreak. With visibility restored, aircraft could attack the Chinese and usually restore the situation. However, Chinese night attacks were so effective that the counsel often went unheeded and defending forces were overrun or destroyed.

Excerpt: Tactics of the Chinese Communists in the Korean War

 

[ChinaToday]

The "Human Wave" tactic is a complete myth, yes, COMPLETE. The closest and most accurate synonym should be large-scale organized/tactical offensive. If you read any books written about the Korean War or analyzed Chinese communist military tactics and history you would realize that nothing in the form of "waves" of chinese charging in unorganized fashion like brain-washed monkeys ever occurred.

A few obvious and logical evidence to disprove this myth are as follows:

if "human wave" tactics as perceived by stereotype were in fact used. The casualty rate would be millions and millions. In WW2 Stalingrad, it is recorded that the Soviet Union did in fact use "human wave" tactics, therefore the casualty rate for that single battle area alone numbered in the millions. Western and Chinese sources place Chinese casualty rates in Korea at 700,000 maximum and 300-500,000 minimum, and this is for an entire war.

the communist leaders and commanders defeated the Japanese, the KMT, and US to some extent with only minimal equipment and manpower in many cases. The "human wave" tactic was never a very feasible strategy. Read Mao's guerilla tactics writings and you'll clearly see the doctrines elaborating on how to conduct warfare in disadvantaged postions, "human wave" tactics are nowhere in any of those books.

so in conclusion: organized large-scale attacks that often resulted in huge casualties (according to western standards), yes. Brainless waves of chinese charging with sticks and stones. No.

 

[gambit]

The "Human Wave" tactic is a complete myth, yes, COMPLETE. The closest and most accurate synonym should be large-scale organized/tactical offensive.

Right...Just repackaging to make it more palatable. At least to the Chinese soldiers the next time around.

If you read any books written about the Korean War or analyzed Chinese communist military tactics and history you would realize that nothing in the form of "waves" of chinese charging in unorganized fashion like brain-washed monkeys ever occurred.

This is where you are wrong. The human wave tactic in no way mean it was thoughtless. It required planning just like every other method of attack.

 

[Fanling Monk]

According to my grandfather, the 'human wave' theory was the talks of every nation outside the iron curtains in the 50s and 60s and most people in Hong Kong believed there were as many as 5 million Chinese fatalities in the Korean War that was given out by the western medias. Even today many uniformed old timers still carry that number in their conversations.

 

[Thomas]

The "Human Wave" tactic is a complete myth, yes, COMPLETE. The closest and most accurate synonym should be large-scale organized/tactical offensive. If you read any books written about the Korean War or analyzed Chinese communist military tactics and history you would realize that nothing in the form of "waves" of chinese charging in unorganized fashion like brain-washed monkeys ever occurred.

A few obvious and logical evidence to disprove this myth are as follows:

if "human wave" tactics as perceived by stereotype were in fact used. The casualty rate would be millions and millions. In WW2 Stalingrad, it is recorded that the Soviet Union did in fact use "human wave" tactics, therefore the casualty rate for that single battle area alone numbered in the millions. Western and Chinese sources place Chinese casualty rates in Korea at 700,000 maximum and 300-500,000 minimum, and this is for an entire war.

the communist leaders and commanders defeated the Japanese, the KMT, and US to some extent with only minimal equipment and manpower in many cases. The "human wave" tactic was never a very feasible strategy. Read Mao's guerilla tactics writings and you'll clearly see the doctrines elaborating on how to conduct warfare in disadvantaged postions, "human wave" tactics are nowhere in any of those books.

so in conclusion: organized large-scale attacks that often resulted in huge casualties (according to western standards), yes. Brainless waves of chinese charging with sticks and stones. No.

from the western perspective the human wave attack and the Chinese short attack were synonymous. So technically no they didn't use human wave attacks. The short attack involved using small units at a weak point followed by other small units close behind. You end up with a seemingly endless wave of attackers concentrating their advance at one point till they break through.

 

[gpit]

Got that explanation for how the '10-lambda' rule violate Born Approximation? Remember, YOU said it and a few working Chinese engineers said otherwise. Of all the things I said here, you can only find one item that you can challenge? So who is eating crow now?

See your logical fallacy?

It is me who first asked you why it needs 10 lambdas as criteria and you said ask your Chinese writers of the article. Then you asked me to tell you why.

You need to get out of your pre-high school level of logical reasoning. Serious.

Dude, listen carefully, I am not your type of racist. When talking about science, I care nothing about race or nationality or religious background of the authors. What I care is how and why according to our present knowledge base.

 

[Korean]

According to my grandfather, the 'human wave' theory was the talks of every nation outside the iron curtains in the 50s and 60s and most people in Hong Kong believed there were as many as 5 million Chinese fatalities in the Korean War that was given out by the western medias. Even today many uniformed old timers still carry that number in their conversations.

The accepted figure was half a million PLA troops killed, including Mao's eldest son. 150K PLA troops were killed during this "retreat" alone.

That's 55% of 900K PLA troops that China injected.