laitimes

Oppugn? Comparing the detailed data on casualties between the enemy and ourselves in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, China is not a crushing victory at all!

author:Residual wine in the lamp

The War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea is obviously an extremely unequal war, but many people question the volunteers, and the point of doubt is mainly that the volunteers won the "United Nations Army" by relying on the tactics of the sea of people, so China's War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea can only be regarded as a crushing victory.

Contrary to what many people think, throughout the Korean War, the volunteers had no obvious superiority in manpower, and the volunteers were inferior to the "United Nations Army" in terms of casualties.

Oppugn? Comparing the detailed data on casualties between the enemy and ourselves in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, China is not a crushing victory at all!

Casualties in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea

According to statistics, the number of casualties of the Chinese volunteers during the entire period of the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea was 366,000, and the statisticians of this data were the Central Military Commission and the War Department of the Chinese Volunteers, which counted the casualties of the volunteers from October 1950 to the signing of the Panmunjom Agreement in July 1953.

Oppugn? Comparing the detailed data on casualties between the enemy and ourselves in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, China is not a crushing victory at all!

Among them, more than 171,000 were killed, and the rest of the losses were wounded, missing, captured, etc.

In addition to China, North Korea, as an ally of China, lost 21~310,000 people in battle, and a total of 400,000 were wounded, missing, and captured. Together with about 300 casualties of the Soviet Air Force, the total casualties on the side of China, North Korea and the Soviet Union were about 97~7.07 million.

In contrast, the casualties of the "United Nations forces" were greater, with the United States losing 36,000 killed, about 100,000 wounded, and nearly 13,000 missing and captured. Outside the United States was South Korea, which bore the lion's share of the casualties throughout the war, with 138,000 killed, 450,000 wounded, and 32,000 captured and missing.

In addition to these two countries, the other "United Nations" units involved in the battle lost a total of about 4,000 killed, about 13,000 wounded, and about 1,700 missing and captured.

Oppugn? Comparing the detailed data on casualties between the enemy and ourselves in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, China is not a crushing victory at all!

Therefore, the total loss of personnel of the United Nations army was about 800,000, compared with the 366,000 casualties of the volunteers, and the number of casualties on the "United Nations army" side was more than twice that of China.

Even taking into account the losses of the Korean People's Army, the gap in the total casualty ratio between the Sino-DPRK coalition forces and the "United Nations Army" is not large, and it is unreasonable to say that the volunteers won a crushing victory.

And this is still in the case of the volunteer army in an extreme logistical shortage, the casualty ratio of the fight, the volunteer army has a lot of non-combat attrition, many places could have reduced casualties.

Like the data of the United States with 3.6 killed and 100,000 wounded, the ratio of killed to wounded is about 1:2.7. The Chinese killed 17.1, wounded, missing, and captured only 195,000, and the ratio of Chinese volunteers killed to wounded was as high as 1:1.14. If you deduct missing and captured, the data is close to 1:1.

Oppugn? Comparing the detailed data on casualties between the enemy and ourselves in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, China is not a crushing victory at all!

It is obvious that the Chinese volunteers died in action because of insufficient medical conditions, resulting in a large number of wounded people who were not treated in battle, and China's death rate of seriously wounded people was close to three times that of the United States.

Another example is the Battle of Changjin Lake, the number of our army participating in the battle is 150,000, military historians speculate that the actual number of volunteers participating in the battle may be between 60,000 ~ 120,000, and other volunteers have been injured or even frozen to death due to cold, and there has been a large proportion of non-combat attrition.

So it is not difficult to see that under the comparison of the logistical gap at that time, it is a miracle that the volunteer army can achieve this achievement.

Oppugn? Comparing the detailed data on casualties between the enemy and ourselves in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, China is not a crushing victory at all!

Chinese and American forces

As for the dispatch of troops, in fact, the gap between the "United Nations Army" and the volunteer army is not too big.

The peak strength of the United Nations Army was 970,000, and the volunteer army was 1.35 million. Subsequently, both China and the United States implemented a system of military rotation and successively sent troops into the Korean battlefield. In the end, a total of 2.9 million volunteers were sent to Korea, and a total of 1.7 million were sent to the Korean battlefield by the "United Nations Army".

Oppugn? Comparing the detailed data on casualties between the enemy and ourselves in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, China is not a crushing victory at all!

However, it should be noted that the United Nations only counted the number of troops that appeared on the Korean battlefield, and in fact, a large number of troops who did not go to Korea at that time took on logistics in Japan.

If we include this part, the United States alone has more than 2.8 million people who participated in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea.

Oppugn? Comparing the detailed data on casualties between the enemy and ourselves in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, China is not a crushing victory at all!

The origin of the misconception of the tactics of the sea of people

As for the tactics of the sea of people, this brings us to the Korean War from a different perspective.

From a macro perspective, the difference between the total strength of China and the "United Nations Army" is not large, but for the soldiers who are actually in the Korean battlefield, it is another matter.

Oppugn? Comparing the detailed data on casualties between the enemy and ourselves in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, China is not a crushing victory at all!

On the one hand, the volunteer army is good at concentrating superior forces to annihilate the enemy.

For example, if there are three positions A, B, and C, both Chinese and American armies have a total strength of 900,000 troops. Mediocre generals would deploy 300,000 men in each of the three positions A, B, and C, while the volunteers would often deploy 100,000 troops in each of the A and B positions to delay the American troops, and then concentrate 700,000 troops to attack position C.

Therefore, although the Chinese and American armies each have 900,000 troops, there will be a difference of 700,000 to 300,000 troops on some battlefields.

This seems easy, but it's very hard to do.

Accomplishing this tactic requires extremely sophisticated intelligence support and commanders' ability to judge the rapidly changing tide of battle. Many people play real-time strategy games, and the opposing army is like an arm's arm, and the army can always reach the specified target place within the time we allotted.

But the actual situation is far more complicated than this, the army has its own consciousness, changes in the battle situation will also interfere with the actions of the army, and even many situations on the battlefield will be unconsciously missed by commanders.

Therefore, the fact that the volunteer army can complete this tactic proves that this army has extremely high military literacy from top to bottom.

Oppugn? Comparing the detailed data on casualties between the enemy and ourselves in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, China is not a crushing victory at all!

The second is that the volunteers like to infiltrate, detour, and attack at night in combat.

Or suppose that a position is held by 100,000 American troops, and the volunteers also have 100,000 troops. The worst tactic is naturally to attack from the front, and the American army can stop the volunteers by concentrating their firepower on the front after being attacked.

But in reality, when attacking this position, 100,000 volunteers would slowly penetrate into the rear of the enemy forces at night, thus encircling the position, and then attacking the position from all sides.

If our perspective is an American GI, we will fall asleep at night and suddenly find ourselves with enemies on all sides, not knowing which direction to point the gun at.

Oppugn? Comparing the detailed data on casualties between the enemy and ourselves in the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, China is not a crushing victory at all!

Therefore, when we stand in the perspective of the front-line US military, we often find that the volunteer troops around us are always higher than our own.

However, in the entire macro battlefield, the gap between the strength of the Chinese and American militaries is not too large. Coupled with the continuous conscious propaganda of the American entertainment circles, many people have the wrong impression that the volunteers won the Korean War by relying on the tactics of piling up human lives.

Read on