When did Communist China surpass WWII Imperial Japan in quality/performance of various combat arms: infantry, armor, arty, air, navy, etc.?

[raharris1973]

When did Communist China surpass WWII Imperial Japan in quality/performance of various combat arms: infantry forces, cavalry FWIW, artillery forces, armor, fighter aircraft, air defenses, bomber aircraft, naval combatants, etc.?

The Chinese Communist forces impressively showed an ability to engage in a slugfest, toe-to-toe with US and allied forces in Korea, a mere 6-9 years after the end of the Pacific War, in an infantry and artillery dominated war, but not one that gave much scope for big armored action on their side, and in which they used their aircraft defensively and conservatively, although, as jet fighters, they had technical capabilities superior to anything the Japanese or Americans fielded in the Pacific War.

But would the Chinese Communist military of that Korean War era, or even a decade later, have had the air support, including air-to-ground attack skills and and conventional forces logistic support and tactical acumen to imitate the bold long-distance offensive strides the Japanese made in 1941-1942 through Thailand, Malaya-Singapore and Burma? In the Korean War era itself they obviously only had a minimum number of submarines and inherited and imported surface naval combats and scarcely a naval tradition, so I can't imagine them having capabilities at that time to pull off invasions of the Philippines or Indonesia. Chinese/PRC AirPower, and to at least some extent, its naval inventory, may have been substantially upgraded by the end of the 1950s or through the 1960s, though we know they waited until the 21st century to even have any aircraft carriers.

 

[IndyFront]

China only recently became a threat. I don't think they would've had the capabilities to do what the Japanese did in those regions during the Vietnam and Korea eras.

 

[LordsFire]

When did Communist China surpass WWII Imperial Japan in quality/performance of various combat arms: infantry forces, cavalry FWIW, artillery forces, armor, fighter aircraft, air defenses, bomber aircraft, naval combatants, etc.?

The Chinese Communist forces impressively showed an ability to engage in a slugfest, toe-to-toe with US and allied forces in Korea, a mere 6-9 years after the end of the Pacific War, in an infantry and artillery dominated war, but not one that gave much scope for big armored action on their side, and in which they used their aircraft defensively and conservatively, although, as jet fighters, they had technical capabilities superior to anything the Japanese or Americans fielded in the Pacific War.

But would the Chinese Communist military of that Korean War era, or even a decade later, have had the air support, including air-to-ground attack skills and and conventional forces logistic support and tactical acumen to imitate the bold long-distance offensive strides the Japanese made in 1941-1942 through Thailand, Malaya-Singapore and Burma? In the Korean War era itself they obviously only had a minimum number of submarines and inherited and imported surface naval combats and scarcely a naval tradition, so I can't imagine them having capabilities at that time to pull off invasions of the Philippines or Indonesia. Chinese/PRC AirPower, and to at least some extent, its naval inventory, may have been substantially upgraded by the end of the 1950s or through the 1960s, though we know they waited until the 21st century to even have any aircraft carriers.

Probably never?

The idea that the Chinese military was 'impressive' in the Korean war is a load of hot nonsense. Fighting directly on your border and having massive numerical advantage isn't an expression of capability, it's an expression of geographical strategic advantage.

You don't generally give people credit for things outside of their control.


The PLA might currently be able to perform to a level of competence around or better than WW2 Japan, but it's pretty hard to say, given they haven't actually fought in a war for about 40 years, and then they got their asses handed to them by the Vietnamese.

 

[raharris1973]

Probably never?

The idea that the Chinese military was 'impressive' in the Korean war is a load of hot nonsense. Fighting directly on your border and having massive numerical advantage isn't an expression of capability, it's an expression of geographical strategic advantage.

You don't generally give people credit for things outside of their control.


The PLA might currently be able to perform to a level of competence around or better than WW2 Japan, but it's pretty hard to say, given they haven't actually fought in a war for about 40 years, and then they got their asses handed to them by the Vietnamese.

Communist China *at least* has to win a “most improved national military performance in five years award” for its Korean War performance compared to the entire national Chinese performance in WWII, unable , despite fighting *inside* its geographic borders and with a massive numerical advantage, to stop the Japanese Army from tentacle r@ping their country for 14 years straight.

North Korea wins a “spunkiest newcomer out of the blue to throw a nasty sucker punch” award for Korea, but it had a glass jaw once the US was fully engaged.

The US deserves a “WTF happened to your G-D WWII Army and tactical air support” for its early in the Korean War disasters of Task Force Smith and then the later rout of the 8th Army and *2nd* loss of Seoul. The US had gone soft, but I got to hand *some* credit to the enemies for having something to do with it.

 

[raharris1973]

Against Vietnam, China didn’t seem to be trying very hard. It did slap India silly in 1962, which would have surprised everyone if you asked in 1942: “Hey, Indian Army vs. Chinese Army, how would that go?”. India would have been odds on favorite in the betting markets then.

 

[Zachowon]

Communist China *at least* has to win a “most improved national military performance in five years award” for its Korean War performance compared to the entire national Chinese performance in WWII, unable , despite fighting *inside* its geographic borders and with a massive numerical advantage, to stop the Japanese Army from tentacle r@ping their country for 14 years straight.

North Korea wins a “spunkiest newcomer out of the blue to throw a nasty sucker punch” award for Korea, but it had a glass jaw once the US was fully engaged.

The US deserves a “WTF happened to your G-D WWII Army and tactical air support” for its early in the Korean War disasters of Task Force Smith and then the later rout of the 8th Army and *2nd* loss of Seoul. The US had gone soft, but I got to hand *some* credit to the enemies for having something to do with it.

The Chinese were only able to do so well do to numbers.
The Chosion resevuare didn't even go to plan for the Chinese due to the Americans. It was due to lack of supplies that caught the US in the way it did.

Add in the fact that the diffrence being we were nit at total war with Korea/China, and the fact that we were fighting on a very small pen compared to all of Europe.

Having been stationed in Korea.
The UN forces did more then anything the Chinese did outside of having numbers.

 

[raharris1973]

The Chinese were only able to do so well do to numbers.

The idea that Chinese tactics in the Korean War were simply 'human wave' and nothing more is myth and particularly unrepresentative of their tactics and operations in their 1st and 2nd phase operations which relied heavily on outflanking, maneuver, and skillful use of off-road maneuver, night marches, and infiltration.

The repeated dislodging and destabilizing of ROK, US, UN positions in occupied North Korea that happened over successive weeks and continued on southward until the second fall of Seoul involved the use of those cunning and aggressive tactics, and its effect on Allied forces was quite reminiscient, in operational terms and moving the battle lines, of the earlier North Korean fix-an-flank advances in the summer of 1950, and the Japanese tactics advancing against the British in Malaya in WWII. The difference in Korea 1950-51 is that US firepower, AirPower, and cohesion remained robust enough to impose continually brutal losses on each wave of the attackers (unlike the forces defending against Japan in early WWII), and they proved resilient, consolidating their line, making Chinese frontal attacks ever more costly, and flanking attacks impossible.

the fact that we were fighting on a very small pen compared to all of Europe.

The small peninsular geography should have worked more against the side relying primarily on numbers (Chinese), because they could only squeeze so many of their national millions onto the peninsula at a single time to make contact with the enemy. The small peninsula should have made it easier for the firepower rich (American) side to counter and neutralize Chinese numbers, and to keep enough damn reconnaissance to not be surprised by them, or their numbers, but it didn't work out that way.

Now of course, once the Americans recovered their footing and stabilizing their lines, the American and allied killing machine was going to be way more efficient and effective per man and inflict severely lopsided casualty and KIA ratios against the enemy, but the Communist Chinese achieved enough to reach a political-military standstill in Korea. It didn't reach Mao's "stretch goals" of getting South Korea and Taiwan, but then Truman didn't attain his "stretch goal" of getting North Korea either. And, within less than five years after taking national power, the Communist regime had put in a military performance and obtained a result against a western military power better than any since the Opium War, and actually more productive than any in about 200 years since the conquest of the Dzunghars in the 1750s.

 

[ATP]

When did Communist China surpass WWII Imperial Japan in quality/performance of various combat arms: infantry forces, cavalry FWIW, artillery forces, armor, fighter aircraft, air defenses, bomber aircraft, naval combatants, etc.?

The Chinese Communist forces impressively showed an ability to engage in a slugfest, toe-to-toe with US and allied forces in Korea, a mere 6-9 years after the end of the Pacific War, in an infantry and artillery dominated war, but not one that gave much scope for big armored action on their side, and in which they used their aircraft defensively and conservatively, although, as jet fighters, they had technical capabilities superior to anything the Japanese or Americans fielded in the Pacific War.

But would the Chinese Communist military of that Korean War era, or even a decade later, have had the air support, including air-to-ground attack skills and and conventional forces logistic support and tactical acumen to imitate the bold long-distance offensive strides the Japanese made in 1941-1942 through Thailand, Malaya-Singapore and Burma? In the Korean War era itself they obviously only had a minimum number of submarines and inherited and imported surface naval combats and scarcely a naval tradition, so I can't imagine them having capabilities at that time to pull off invasions of the Philippines or Indonesia. Chinese/PRC AirPower, and to at least some extent, its naval inventory, may have been substantially upgraded by the end of the 1950s or through the 1960s, though we know they waited until the 21st century to even have any aircraft carriers.

Certainly not when Vietnam defeated them in 1979,i think.
Maybe 2000? They had arleady modern planes,tanks and Navy then.