300K PLA soldiers died in service since 1949

[fishhead]

300,000 service people lose lives since 1949

BEIJING, July 18 (Xinhua) -- More than 300,000 service people from the Chinese military have lost their lives since the founding of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1949, according to a new military exhibition in Beijing that marks the 80th anniversary of the establishment of the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

The exhibition reveals the casualties of the PRC armed forces for the first time, although it fails to elaborate on details of deaths from each war or non-combat activity.

According to PLA military history, the 1950-1953 Korean War was the conflict in which most lives were lost, with more than 140,000 deaths. The Ministry of Civil Affairs cites the death toll at around 170,000. The discrepancy is believed to lie in the ministry's inclusion of civilian casualties during the war.

During peace time, the Chinese armed forces were also mobilized to participate in relief efforts in the wake of natural disasters. Many soldiers lost their lives while building roads on perilous route from Sichuan Province into Tibet. Some military medical workers died from treating highly infectious victims of SARS in the pandemic threat from 2002 to 2003.

The PRC armed forces include the PLA and the People's Armed Police (PAP). The PAP was separated in 1982 from the PLA with the task of maintaining domestic social order.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-07/18/content_6395148.htm

[Violet Oboe]

Regarding the history of the Korean War (1950-53) the figures could be quite significant if they indeed include all fatal casualties of chinese ´volunteers´in Korea. (140000 KIA, 170000 with civ cas included)

The remarkable military performance of the PLA and her ´volunteers´in the Korean war would be even more impressive if they would have sustained only that kind of comparably low casualty rate. Recent research of chinese and korean scholars has indicated that PLA had built an excellent deep fortification and logistics networks in Korea giving indeed some degree of protection against the raw power of USAF bombing campaigns. Furthermore the GI legends of ´mass infantry attacks´by the PLA have been proven mostly incorrect or at least overblown. In fact chinese infantery tactics in offense and defense was quite flexible and chinese commanders demonstrated considerable leading skills.

Moreover the biased legends about the air war over Korea have been dismantled long ago: Just remember US stated that for every lost F-86 Sabre they shot down 6-7 MiG 15!
After an intensive international effort of war historians (Chinese, Russian, American and European) crosschecking evidence in russian and chinese archives they established that the real ratio was around 5 MiG 15 shot down for every 4 F-86 (1.2:1)!
(A russian research team came even to the conclusion that the real ratio was actually 1:1).

[MrClean]

Oh but jee the russians arent biased at all, in fact the actual claim by US forces was 12-1 kill ratio over Mig Alley mostly because of all of the experienced ww2 vets and radar operated .50s. But I would be more inclined to believe that it was more like a third or half that but 1-1 no way.

[bd popeye]

I think the bougus Korean Conflict US casulity & losses reports were due to the "Red Scare" fear going on in the early 1950's in the US which were promulgated by the US Congress looking for Communist(Reds) under every rock in the US. More than likely the bogus figures were brought on to show the American public the US has an upper hand on the "Red Scare". Just my opinion.

[fishhead]

More than likely the bogus figures were brought on to show the American public the US has an upper hand on the "Red Scare". Just my opinion.

That's just part of the reason. I read some articles comparing Chinese and American combat records(they're not made up, but recorded by combat troops) for the same battle. Both sides exaggerated the other side causalties, sometimes even 10 times of the real number.

The most exaggeration happend in the defence side, you can imagine what kind of panic mode they were at the time.

[zraver]

Moreover the biased legends about the air war over Korea have been dismantled long ago: Just remember US stated that for every lost F-86 Sabre they shot down 6-7 MiG 15!
After an intensive international effort of war historians (Chinese, Russian, American and European) crosschecking evidence in russian and chinese archives they established that the real ratio was around 5 MiG 15 shot down for every 4 F-86 (1.2:1)!
(A russian research team came even to the conclusion that the real ratio was actually 1:1).

I can maybe beleive that Russian "volunteer aces" known as the Honcho's could get 1-1. I aid maybe beucase in WW2 the VVS never managed to produce aces to the density of a western trained airforce but still an ace is an ace.

But to think that the majority of the pilots, poorly trained and flying a bomber killer vs WW2 vets including some of America's best aces in a fighter made for dogfighting with a radar gunsight is pushing it. The F-86 pilots reported Nork and PRC pilots (Greenhorns) just hunkering down behind thier armor and taking it till thier planes fell apart.

12-1 is entirely beleivable when puttign the talent of the US vs the green pilots of the commies. The ratio probalby levels out when bombers are added to the commie score. But at the end of the day the F-86 was never forced to fight over the American/ South Koreans but kept the airwar over the coominist forces despite being outnumbered and flying at extreme range and that by it self says all it needs to.

[fishhead]

In Korea war air battle, UN recognized that they lost 1986 airplanes, among which USAF and marine lost 1466 + 368, other countries lost 152. Among them they only recognized 174 airplanes were lost in air combat, and they claimed they brought down 976 PLA+Soviet airplanes. American claimed that they lost 914 airplanes to the ground air defence, the others were due to the mechanical problems/accidents.

PLA claimed they shot down 330 UN airplanes, lost 231. Soviet claimed they shot down 1106 UN airplanes, lost 345.

[zraver]

In Korea war air battle, UN recognized that they lost 1986 airplanes, among which USAF and marine lost 1466 + 368, other countries lost 152. Among them they only recognized 174 airplanes were lost in air combat, and they claimed they brought down 976 PLA+Soviet airplanes. American claimed that they lost 914 airplanes to the ground air defence, the others were due to the mechanical problems/accidents.

PLA claimed they shot down 330 UN airplanes, lost 231. Soviet claimed they shot down 1106 UN airplanes, lost 345.


Ground fire in North Korea was brutal, the Norks and CVA set up heavy machine guns and light cannon on hill tops and valley ends and these exacted a brutal toll on the fighter bombers and A series craft that flew low level support missions. In air to air missions once the US stopped sending B-29's on daylight missions beucase of the Mig-15 the air battles were fighter vs fighter beucase the US fought daily over Mig Alley to keep the communist air forces bottled up and unable to interfere with the ground war.

If we go by your figures for the communist forces thats 231+345= 576 communist losses. The offical USAF loss was 103 Sabres. I think non-F-86 deisngs got a few kills but surely under 50 so lets say its 526 vs 103 thats still 5-1 in favor of the F-86.

[fishhead]

I don't endorse these claims, just list the number they acknowledged.

Don't exaggerate Chinese ground air defence, it was extremely weak. Especially in the first year it's virtually zero, since PLA had no anti-aircraft weapons and training. Even the CVA headquater didn't have any air-defence protection, that's wherer Mao's son got killed in air-raid.

[zraver]

losing near 1500 tac air craft to ground fire is pretty effective.

[mpaduan79]

losing near 1500 tac air craft to ground fire is pretty effective.
its really questionable that during the korean war PLA and NKA have very little AA equiment(PLA was for the most armed with captured enemy arms during the 1950s) and exprience on AAA usage and dictotrine not like NVA in Vietnam war.Futhermore that most of the aircraft their upagainst is faster than ww2 ones and flyed by vets that dogdge German AAA during the ww2...but well hail to PLA, the first army in the world to defeat US army in open combat , :coffee:

add info from http://www.centurychina.com/history/faq2.shtml
. How was the PLA equipment in the Korean war?
PLA was basically a rifle infantry with almost no heavy weapons beyond mortars, their rifles were mostly captured from Japanese and KMT armies in the anti-Japanese war and the civil war, and they lacked ammunition. When the Korean war started, PRC was less than one year old, and it was focusing on reconstruction of a nation which suffered 8 years of Japanese aggression and plundering. China's steel production was a meager 0.6 million tons (in comparison, US figure was 87 million tons). China had almost no industry, it could not make weapons at large quantity, especially heavy weapons and their ammunitions. A PLA army then had less than 10% of the fire power of a US Corps, it had only 36 artillery pieces of 76mm or larger, while a US Corps had over 300 guns of 105mm or larger, PLA army had no tanks. PLA also lacked transport, a PLA division had only scores of trucks, and its supply had to be carried by porters.

After PLA's first successful campaigns in Korea, PLA bought Soviet weapons enough to equip 20 divisions, thus improved its fire power. At the final stage of the war, PLA was able to mass up a good number of heavy artillery to break an ROK/US defense line by brute force

[fishhead]

I have the suspion on both side's claims so I won't trust any of them. No need to elaborate it further I don't think anybody could konw the fact today, even you have the hands on the original combat records(distorted probably as well even at that time).

PLA's most equipments in the first year came from captured KMT weapons, not very obsolete since they're most American made one in WW2. But they didn't have much heavy weapons honestly, KMT divisions were equiped as light infantry according to the US standard. PLA had no AA weapons basically, since KMT had no need of them in combat with PLA.

CVA lost 3 army level commanders, 20 division level commanders, 200 regiment level commanders. It's a terrible lose of your officier team, almost all of them were killed by US air attacks.

[zraver]

its really questionable that during the korean war PLA and NKA have very little AA equiment(PLA was for the most armed with captured enemy arms during the 1950s) and exprience on AAA usage and dictotrine not like NVA in Vietnam war.Futhermore that most of the aircraft their upagainst is faster than ww2 ones and flyed by vets that dogdge German AAA during the ww2...but well hail to PLA, the first army in the world to defeat US army in open combat

CVA and PDRK AAA matured the sae way US airpower did. Early in the war till the mid point the primary fighter bombers were old WW2 era propjobs like the Corsair and A-26 Invader. As loses mounted fighter bomber jets were introduced.

Also the CVA cannot really claim victory neither side was ale to re-unify Korea but the US did meet the UN goals, it was a draw, neither the communist nor the UN forces was willing to risk total war.

[sinowarrior]

the chinese claim for air scores were in fact bogus, there is no way for rookie airfoce to achieve that kind of killing ratios, check later WW2 aerial battles between Japan and USA, 10:1 is very possible. as for equipment, the intial batch of PVA are from 4th front, and their equipments were the best among PLA, and with the right terrian, they did inflict some tactical defeat on US army in the initial stage of the war

[fishhead]

Both sides' claims are bogus.

China-Soviet claims that they shot down 330+1106 UN airplanes in the air war, that's 72% of UN lost, and they only lost 500 something. If that were true, you would see PLA airplanes showing up above Seol, which didn't happen.

US claims they only lost less than 10% in air combat, lost 50% to ground fire. It's absurd as well. If it were true, PLA simply didn't need to invest in airforce, which costs a lot more, just buying more anti-aircraft guns could protect their troops.

The truth lays somewhere in the middle. Since it's the first large scale jet-fighter combat, the past experience counts but still you need to learn a lot new things. That's why even Chinese rookies shot down some US ace, like Maj. George Davis.


Read the records about George Davis' death from both sides, even with a lot of disputes, one thing is clear that both sides acknowledge he was shot down by Chinese pilot. Russian never claims this kill. Mr. Zhang, the pilot shooting down Davis, was well known in China since 1950s. He had only 100 hrs flight time when the combat happened, and was the squard leader already.
http://www.acepilots.com/korea/george.html

[mpaduan79]

the chinese claim for air scores were in fact bogus, there is no way for rookie airfoce to achieve that kind of killing ratios, check later WW2 aerial battles between Japan and USA, 10:1 is very possible. as for equipment, the intial batch of PVA are from 4th front, and their equipments were the best among PLA, and with the right terrian, they did inflict some tactical defeat on US army in the initial stage of the war
The Battle of Chosin Reservoir
Chinese People's Volunteer Army considered the battle an honor, although they were not prepared for the horrible casualties they incurred. This campaign, with the simultaneous victory against U.S. forces to the west, was the first time in a century a Chinese army was able to defeat a Western army in a major battle, despite the heavy losses.how much i dont know??
hail to PLA the first army to defeat us army in open battle:coffee:

[zraver]

The Canadians, Germans, Confederate States of America, Nez Perce Indians, Souix Indians, Mexicans, and British beat ya to it. The US loses battles every now and then. We just ry and not make a habit of it.

[sinowarrior]

japan did beat US badly in the beginning of WW2, at least force US to surrender, and MacArthur to flee to Brisbane, and even after Normandy, Germans did beat Yankees several times, but nontheless it is still a great achievement for PLA to actully push US back.

[fishhead]

Well, military point of view, it's a draw, actually it's slightly in favor of US, since they grabbed a little more land, thanks to Mao's stupidity. Mao has some common point with Hitler, very pushing, he alway push the envelop to the extreme. The Chinese field commander, general Peng remained extremely cool mind. He knew the weakness of PLA in logistic, and he wanted to stop at the 38th line, wanted to stop after catching Seuol, but 3 times he was forced to attack by Stalin, Kim and Mao. After the 5th offense, PLA actually collapsed facing US counter-attack, it was 63th Army that fought at any cost for 8 days, stopped the tide and stablize the front, otherwise you would see PLA defence line at Pyongyang.

But nevertheless, Korea War is the turning point in Chinese history, it completely changed the Chinese in psychologic. It decides the late fate of Mao and CCP as well. Before the war, half of the Chinese were suspicious of Mao, but Mao became the God after the war, PLA became the real king of China. Chinese had been desperate for a regime that could raise an amry that can fight for 100 years, CCP promised it and delivered that promise. PLA proves that they would fight at any cost to drive the threat off the Chinese border. In China no one is against PLA the boldest they do is cursing politicans, but when PLA made the choise and took the side, everybody shut up, just like after June 4th - whatever PLA does is right - that's the biggest legacy of the Korea war.

[Violet Oboe]

PLA enjoys highest respect from every corner of the chinese society and if times would arise where the destiny of the country would be on the brink the Army would finally call the shots.

Moreover PLA is a virtual guarantee that a chinese ´Gorbachev´would not ever come to power and carry out his selfdestructing ´reforms´initiating the collapse of the chinese state and society in the end.

A chinese leader acting as an ´useful idiot´of foreign powers would be perceived by the PLA as an acute danger for the unity and security of the motherland and no faction of the CPC regardless of its influence would be able to save that man from his well deserved fate. :D

[Gollevainen]

PLA's stature in chinese hieracy or other chinese internal political issues hardly fells under the gathergory of PLA casualities in Korean war, does it?

smoothly lingering back to the orginal issues, if you don't mind...