Equipment used in Korea

[darth sidious]

here is the equipment the chinese started with 39th army

以东野王牌39军为例，看看志愿军在初期使用什么装备。全军装备步枪1.2万支，包括6.5步枪，7.9步 枪和.30步枪。其中.30步枪估计是M1903和M1917步枪。冲锋枪3千支，包括Thompson， Grease和Sten冲锋枪等。机枪1200挺，轻机枪包括7.9轻机枪，.30轻机枪和.303轻机枪 ，其中.30轻机枪可能是M1918a2自动步枪。重机枪包括7.7重机枪和.30重机枪，其中.30重机 枪应该是M1917a1重机枪。迫击炮390门，各种口径的都有。70步兵炮36门，是日制92式步兵炮。 75山炮36门，包括日制41式，日制94式和美制M1a1山炮。6联装102火箭炮9门，入朝时只有39 军装备

rifle:12000 mostly Chin ka shek type aka K98k but also arisakas .30 rifle mostly M1903/M1917

submachinegun:3000 Greaseguns, sten and Thompson

Machine gun light:800 chez ZB-26, M1918a2 automoatic rifle

Machine gun Heavy:400 type 24 aka German M1909 Maxian gun, .30 M1917a1

Mortars: 390 all types

Cannons: 36*type 90 70mm Japanese infantrry cannon

mountian guns: 36 included Japanese type 41 and 92 plus American M1a1 105mm

rocket lunchers: 9*102mm chinese made

Knee mortar *100

Bazukas*300

if any of you have other information please fill in

[patriot]

Chinese soldiers used the types captured from the Americans later in the war. They started using American carbines that are much lighter to carry and American artillaries.

[WEN?]

normally they were given around 4-5 rounds before each engagement. the gov was too poor to give the nesecary equipment so it was natural to salvage what they could from the fallen foe.

[Red Guard]

M1 grand was too big for china soldier at the time, even now. that's why chinese perfer 38 rifle and chinese 98K more. but M1 carbine has more ammo for one clip, and it shoots faster. but i guess because of the weight, more people would prefer other rifles. chinese prefer M1 carbine, we've seen those in civil war, thompson sub, M3 sub, PPSH-41/43.

[patriot]

M1 grand was too big for china soldier at the time, even now. that's why chinese perfer 38 rifle and chinese 98K more. but M1 carbine has more ammo for one clip, and it shoots faster. but i guess because of the weight, more people would prefer other rifles. chinese prefer M1 carbine, we've seen those in civil war, thompson sub, M3 sub, PPSH-41/43.


"Even now"
Wow, M1 grand had expired from the western military about the 60s 70s. If we are still using those, then we might just give up Taiwan and let the Americans make fun of us.

[T-U-P]

rifle:12000 mostly Chin ka shek type aka K98k but also arisakas .30 rifle mostly M1903/M1917

submachinegun:3000 Greaseguns, sten and Thompson

Machine gun light:800 chez ZB-26, M1918a2 automoatic rifle

it sure sounds like the chinese army is the garbage collector. these guns were mainly used in WWII, like the thompson, sten, greasegun, k98k etc. i know they're still quite effective but other countries are already using assault rifles and china is still using old submachine guns. not to criticize, just saying it has a feeling of being a garbage collector.

[patriot]

I know most of our tank, airplanes, ships are made from technology from the 50s and 60s but i don't think we are that poor at buying simple rifles. I can get better guns from ebbay than those types.

[Red Guard]

"Even now"
Wow, M1 grand had expired from the western military about the 60s 70s. If we are still using those, then we might just give up Taiwan and let the Americans make fun of us.


is it the problem of my english? by even now i mean even now it is too big and heavy for chiense soldiers.

and yes. at the time. chinese armies were like a world weaponaries. not only M1s, K98s and stuff, there are samples showing, also weapons captured by the soviet army from germany were also issued to them as well. you could find lots of rare seen weapons in the force, today in the garbage pile.....or...miliitary historical museum in beijing.....

[patriot]

oh
sorry about mis-interpretting that.
Also, China was selling those old rifles to countries in Africa mostly poor unstable country that need those.

[darth sidious]

it sure sounds like the chinese army is the garbage collector. these guns were mainly used in WWII, like the thompson, sten, greasegun, k98k etc. i know they're still quite effective but other countries are already using assault rifles and china is still using old submachine guns. not to criticize, just saying it has a feeling of being a garbage collector.

also you tooo patriot!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT PART OF KOREA DO YOU NOT GET !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS THE KOREAN WAR !!!!!! 1950-1953

THE BEST WEAPON THE AMERICAN HAVE IS THE M-1 GARAND !!!!!!!!!!! NOT M-16

THE CHINESE ARMY IS ALSO NOT SO POORLY ARMED FOR THAT TIME ALMOST COMPARBLE TO A GERMAN INFANTRY DIVISION IN1939


ALSO NO ONE MAKE 7.92/6.5 roumd any more old 7.62 are also hard to get so you cant sell them

[WEN?]

the M-16 was still in the reaserching days during the 1953 under the
'project salvo'. even the museums mainly have the M-1 grand ad the main gun on display.

[Ender Wiggin]

Its not that they were poor, it was more about the fact that China lacked alot of the industries and the infastructure needed to produce weapons and equipment, they could produce some of what they needed but still nevertheless needed what they could get their hands on.

[rommel]

Well, we can only say that China didn't really "upgraded" their weapon stock since World War 2. I think that T-U-P did have a point, China is using lot of bolt-action rifle when the ennemy have semi-automatic or automatic weapon... for exemple, the US have M1 Garand (Semi-automatic) and the USM2 Carbin (fully automatic) in standart issue...

Hum... It seem that the whole 39th army was having as much equipment than a german infantrie-division of 1939 on the paper...

[Red Guard]

Well, we can only say that China didn't really "upgraded" their weapon stock since World War 2. I think that T-U-P did have a point, China is using lot of bolt-action rifle when the ennemy have semi-automatic or automatic weapon... for exemple, the US have M1 Garand (Semi-automatic) and the USM2 Carbin (fully automatic) in standart issue...

Hum... It seem that the whole 39th army was having as much equipment than a german infantrie-division of 1939 on the paper...

98K is also a single shot rifle, it didn't stop it from becoming one of the best rifle in the war. and it didn't affect the killing rate. US soldiers had a great firing rate, but most time they shot blindly. chinese soldiers were training in combat for not wasting the bullets, since we had very limited of those. it did not matter that much in korean war about the single and semi auto firing rate.

[darth sidious]

only the us have semi-automatic every nation is useing boalt action as their main weapon( too few sks)

chinas weapon are mostly captured from WWII and left over aid by the americans to the nationalists

Rommel chinese "division" sometimes have as few as 5000 men

a army is about the size of a division by western stander

[rommel]

Well, I think that maybe chinese army have a different organisation than a US or british one... It's true that the Brits and Canadian and others countries have bolt-action rifle, but the use doctrine was different, they have a machine-gun for each fireteam, that mean that there's a machine gun for each 8-11 men... a western fireteam in this time have 2-4 SMG + 1 MG + 4-7 rifles... A platoon (around 40 men) have generally at least 4 machine-gun in this time...

the 98k became famous for his bolt system (which is marvelous) and it's stopping power (you can pierce 7mm of iron or 2mm of steel at 1800m...) still, those rifles was heavy + a heavy recoil... the slow firing rate can affect in combat, to shoot blindly lot of bullet have a morale effect on the opponent, military call this Suppressive Fire (it's to shoot on a area where the ennemy could be, not for killing, but mainly to affect the morale strengh, we do that with semi-auto weapon, automatic weapon and artillery). It forced the incomming ennemy to cover themself and can reduce the morale... You can't do much suppressive fire with a Mauser...

A army will be the size of a division ?? Well, western division was big in number, but only part of this was actually fighting personnel, about the 1/5 - 1/10 (depending of the army) are normally support personnel (command staff, logistic support, medical unit, drivers, cook,etc...) Anyway, I wouldn't understand why Chinese Army's Organisation was so small, a Russian or Allied Army was about the same strengh as a German WWII Korps, could China army be smaller... And with the number of weapon you give us, I'll say the Chinese army was at least maybe 25,000 - 30,000 men, a strengh that is pretty much the same for a western army...

I'm not criticizing the Chinese, only giving a infratryman's point of view.

[darth sidious]

Well, I think that maybe chinese army have a different organisation than a US or british one... It's true that the Brits and Canadian and others countries have bolt-action rifle, but the use doctrine was different, they have a machine-gun for each fireteam, that mean that there's a machine gun for each 8-11 men... a western fireteam in this time have 2-4 SMG + 1 MG + 4-7 rifles... A platoon (around 40 men) have generally at least 4 machine-gun in this time...

the 98k became famous for his bolt system (which is marvelous) and it's stopping power (you can pierce 7mm of iron or 2mm of steel at 1800m...) still, those rifles was heavy + a heavy recoil... the slow firing rate can affect in combat, to shoot blindly lot of bullet have a morale effect on the opponent, military call this Suppressive Fire (it's to shoot on a area where the ennemy could be, not for killing, but mainly to affect the morale strengh). It forced the incomming ennemy to cover themself and can reduce the morale... You can't do much suppressive fire with a Mauser...

A army will be the size of a division ?? Well, western division was big in number, but only part of this was actually fighting personnel, about the 1/5 - 1/10 (depending of the army) are normally support personnel (command staff, logistic support, medical unit, drivers, cook,etc...) Anyway, I wouldn't understand why Chinese Army's Organisation was so small, a Russian or Allied Army was about the same strengh as a German WWII Korps, could China army be smaller... And with the number of weapon you give us, I'll say the Chinese army was at least maybe 25,000 - 30,000 men, a strengh that is pretty much the same for a western army...

I'm not criticizing the Chinese, only giving a infratryman's point of view.

on the weapons the chinese army become quite skilled at the use of heavy machinegun to deter japanese during WWII in many korean war accounts you will find reference to it

the type 24 is quite good at this

during this time the best equipt units usuely have 1*zb-26(bren gun ) per squad and at lest one smg paltoon have atlest one heavy machine gun plus one" knee motar" or even a 92 paltoon cannon

as for the chinese being so samll its because at this point they are more along nationalist organization commander often kept the division under strength t keep the pay of the phantom solider "officaly" on the payrool

eventualy its found that smaller organization is easier to control in ballte and more moblie

the communist more heavily equipted then the nationalist counterpart usuely have about 8000 men as every one is trained to fight this is not such a big disadvangtage

like the japanese army the chinese army sees bayonet as the principle weapon in close combat so the lomg and heavy rifle is actualy an advantage

[Red Guard]

the reason chinese fancy 98K is because 98K is smaller and lighter, after wars since the beginning of the century, chinese population left with smaller and shorter men, who are not capable to carry heavy rifles. also because of the bullets producing and training, chinese fancy bayonet action in close combat which is not really an advantage of US soldiers, even though they are taller, stronger, and heavier. chinese soldiers are more fearless and smarter than chinese. according to some books, soldiers who fought in both pacific and korea quoted that the chinese is nothing like japanese, you could use machine gun to mow down the japanese as they banzai attacks, but chinese human waves are much smarter than that.

darth i think you meant SVT-40 instead of SKS, SKS came out almost at the end of the war.

[rommel]

during this time the best equipt units usuely have 1*zb-26(bren gun ) per squad and at lest one smg paltoon have atlest one heavy machine gun plus one" knee motar" or even a 92 paltoon cannon

as for the chinese being so samll its because at this point they are more along nationalist organization commander often kept the division under strength t keep the pay of the phantom solider "officaly" on the payrool

eventualy its found that smaller organization is easier to control in ballte and more moblie

the communist more heavily equipted then the nationalist counterpart usuely have about 8000 men as every one is trained to fight this is not such a big disadvangtage

Well, you only give 800 LMG for 12,000 rifles and 3,000 SMG, that's more than 1 MG for 18 men... Which is different than the western pattern... In fact, I don't think that each fireteam is gonna get a support weapon... Which mean that lot of team don't have a decent firepower... don't forget, the machine-gun is the most powerful weapon of you infantry section...

Well, you'll gonna be surprise of the size of western army organization, there are not so big, it's only we have so much support personnel that we seem big...

I will give the simplified order of battle of a typical infantry division by the West.

Infantry Fireteam have 11 men in this time,
4 fireteam per platoon = 44 men per platoon, + the command staff = 49-50 men per platoon,
a company generally have 3 platoon + command staff = 160 men.
4 Company = 1 battalion, so it's around 560 men for a battalion,
and a regiment = 3 battalion + command staff = around 1700men,
and a division have normally 3 regiment + 4 or 5 support battalion (like AA, medical, AT, etc...) + the command staff = around 8000 men...

Normally, a armored division and motorized have less men since each tank or is considered as a fireteam and there's always 3 regiments of 3 battalions each, a armored division is generallu 2 regiment with 2 battalion of tank + 1 battalion of infantry and 1 infantry regiment, while the motorized infantry is 2 regiment of 1 armor battalion and 2 battalion of infantry + 1 regiment of infantry

So a full size division will have around 10,000-12,000 men because we need lot of drivers, cooks, guy who do paperwork, mechanics, weapon technician (repare and clean the weapon) but there's only the 3/4 of this number that are combattants, all the rest are support...

BTW, the 98k was like 170g lighter and 15cm shorter than the G98, but it still was a hulky weapon... because the K98k was still 1,10m long and weight 4 kg....

In comparaison, my C7A1 (the same weapon than on my avatart) which is my service weapon, weight 3.9 loaded and is 1,0m long...

[Red Guard]

ja, no surprise, it's 50 years later, man...............
our type 95 is shorter and lighter than C7......

[simonov]

According to u all is Communist Side Or Aliied Side who win the war.

(I think nobody win because they keep stood in parallel 38)

But in all Communist win, because they go to war with limited eqp not like Allied n SK which have good eqp, Vehicle and Air Support. According Seceret War, US pilot gave order to shooting everything move as a target in Korean war.

PRC claim their lost only 400.000 casualties in all (KIA,WIA, and MIA)

MOD EDIT PiSigma: who are you addressing to? are you trying to reply to another thread??? PM me or another mod/admin and we can merge it for you.

[Red Guard]

actually we claimed lost of 300.000, which i remembered as we lost 10 people with US lost 1 person. but 300.000 is lost for only china, so if you are going to count the whole, you have to count in the lost of south korean army with the US and other people too, like...canada...
my point about korean war is, we won. since north korea wasn't defeated. and it's the best way to stay this way for two koreas, otherwise, if korea was united, they would be like viet nam too.
so, we might lost way too many people in the war. but we didn't let them put guards on yalu river. since war isn't about casulties, especialy for china, the war was won by us.

(or, like in "that 70's show", red says "we didn't lose the war, it was a tie", just joking :D)

[IDonT]

actually we claimed lost of 300.000, which i remembered as we lost 10 people with US lost 1 person. but 300.000 is lost for only china, so if you are going to count the whole, you have to count in the lost of south korean army with the US and other people too, like...canada...
my point about korean war is, we won. since north korea wasn't defeated. and it's the best way to stay this way for two koreas, otherwise, if korea was united, they would be like viet nam too.
so, we might lost way too many people in the war. but we didn't let them put guards on yalu river. since war isn't about casulties, especialy for china, the war was won by us.

(or, like in "that 70's show", red says "we didn't lose the war, it was a tie", just joking :D)

Nobody won it was a draw....

North Korea wanted to unify the country by forced and failed.
US forces defended South Korea and decided that, while they are at it, they can unite the country by force.
China got nervous that 3 army corps are within its borders and lauched a counter attack.
Counter attack held by US forces somewhere around the original border.
Both sides dig in for the next 2 years.

End result, nothing changed so no winner.

[Red Guard]

no no, you have to look beyond the war. war is the elasting of politics.
does china want korea to be unified? no.
from my point of view, korean war is the great patriotic war for china, we fought the war on korea, let them take the burnt soil, and civilian damage, we gained the best interest. otherwise. after korea is defeated, US may attack china after that. in this way, we kept a safe zone between china and the west. and we hit US hard, so they will think twice next time of launchin a war on us. in that way, it's a great win for us.
as i say, for china korean war was a lost on tactics, but a victory on strategy. for US, it was a victory on tactics, but a lost on strategy.
we had achieved our goal, they didn't.

[IDonT]

no no, you have to look beyond the war. war is the elasting of politics.
does china want korea to be unified? no.
from my point of view, korean war is the great patriotic war for china, we fought the war on korea, let them take the burnt soil, and civilian damage, we gained the best interest. otherwise. after korea is defeated, US may attack china after that. in this way, we kept a safe zone between china and the west. and we hit US hard, so they will think twice next time of launchin a war on us. in that way, it's a great win for us.
as i say, for china korean war was a lost on tactics, but a victory on strategy. for US, it was a victory on tactics, but a lost on strategy.
we had achieved our goal, they didn't.

The original US goal was to defend South Korea. That they accomplished. Pushing north was MacArthur's idea and he sold it with the guarantee the China will not get involved.

China entered the war, because, as you said, they are not comfortable having a large US army on its borders. MacArthur actually went ballistic when China intervened and went so far as to advocate using nuclear weapons on China. He was fired after that.

[DPRKUnderground]

no no, you have to look beyond the war. war is the elasting of politics.
does china want korea to be unified? no.
from my point of view, korean war is the great patriotic war for china, we fought the war on korea, let them take the burnt soil, and civilian damage, we gained the best interest. otherwise. after korea is defeated, US may attack china after that. in this way, we kept a safe zone between china and the west. and we hit US hard, so they will think twice next time of launchin a war on us. in that way, it's a great win for us.
as i say, for china korean war was a lost on tactics, but a victory on strategy. for US, it was a victory on tactics, but a lost on strategy.
we had achieved our goal, they didn't.

First of all, good job on supporting the PLA in the Korean War. Now the North Korean people are starving and conditions are horribile because the Kim family is still in power. Second of all, North Korea lost, China won, and the UN won and lost at the same time. North Korea lost b/c they didn't re-unify Korea under their rule. China won because they wanted the US out of North Korea and not lingering right by their border. The UN won and lost because South Korea is still around but they never got rid of the evil Kim il-Sung.

[darth sidious]

mods plz merge this with the korean war thread I had here before

[Red Guard]

First of all, good job on supporting the PLA in the Korean War. Now the North Korean people are starving and conditions are horribile because the Kim family is still in power. Second of all, North Korea lost, China won, and the UN won and lost at the same time. North Korea lost b/c they didn't re-unify Korea under their rule. China won because they wanted the US out of North Korea and not lingering right by their border. The UN won and lost because South Korea is still around but they never got rid of the evil Kim il-Sung.


that's what i meant, thanks.
as a person, i do feel sorry about the korean people. but as a nation, there is really nothing we could do. we can't go into korea, and remove the kim family like the US did to Iraq......
as a communist member, i put a curse on these unfaithful so called "communists".

[taijisheng]

Of course China won the Korea war, China pushed US half korea back and kept it that way. It is politically, strategically, and tactically a big faliure and huge embarassment for the US, in the years after that, the US did't all they could to wipe out this war from the memory of ordinary americans, I even belive that Hollywood was/is not allowed to make any movies about it, who saw a movie about korea war made by hollywood ? There is only M.A.S.H which is a comedy anti-war tv serie.

For China, its not only about securing the north-east border, it also shows the world that China was not the same china anyone which was once humiliated by western powers, the politic and strategic impact of korea war were profound.
It is only after korea war that the new china had 'earned' its place on the international stage and start being respected as a major power.

[sumdud]

Uh, do you know about the movie "The Bridge at To-Ku-Ri"? (Name might be wrong.) I am not sure who made the film, but it was certainly about the Korean War.

[Red Guard]

ja, i've seen that movie. actually there are a couple movies, very limited, i don't think the number is over 10....about korean war. and most of them aren't about the war itself, but the people in it. MASH is funny, i once saw a cantoonese playing a chinese army officer giving the prisons back to the amercians, and he was like saying" you people bomb us day and night, we can't even sleep, and while we trading prisoners you still shoot at us". then in the next esp, he turned into a south korean doctor.........

[xihaoli]

Wow you pay way too much attention....

Anyways, i know this is knd of off topic but can someone provide me an accurate number for the number of chinese casulties? (KIA,WIA,MIA) From looking at different sites, i've come to the number of around three hundred thousand to one million. (This is even said in the Ap.Us history text book) However, i did notice that in the text book the KIA of american forces numbered 50000, while the one million number was regarded as CASULTIES, so can someone please provide a accurate source of only the numbers of KIA as well?

BTW. The k98 was only two pounds lighter then the M1 Garand....not much of a difference......The advantage of the M1 Garand lies in its fast firing rate, its power and barrel length was shorter then the k98, dispite the k98 being much smaller.....

Did china get any of the Mauser k98 rifle gernades?

[simonov]

Well, actually its said the communits side casualties is 1 million. If they talk about Communis side its mean PVA (People Volunteer Army, China) and NKPA.
So same with Allied, the total Casualties is 1 million, with SK is the biggest share (almost 70%). And actually During War, the PVA always admitted that SK always make them trouble, not the American

[xihaoli]

The Korean War: The West Confronts Communism 1950-1953 by Hickey, Michael

I did a research paper on the Korean air losses and stumbled on to this.

Acording to this, one of the main losses of men on both sides was actually due to the extreme weather conditions of the Korean winter during the first year. The PVA, aparently wanting a quick knockout blow at the UN forces, were unprepared for the harsh condition sof the Korean Winters, which was one of the most severe during the years. The same applied to UN war veterns who were expecting semi-europeon climits.

He also stated that one of the major flaws of PVA air tactics in Korea was the short leggedness of the mig15/17. Due to the fac that they mainly operated from the chinese side of the Yalu, the migs were unable to provide adiquate air support for the ground troops. Apparently a few il-2s were also used, although i havent seen any pictures....

[Kampfwagen]

http://www.geocities.com/jkjustin/osmith29.jpg

(Sighs) I love google. An Il-2 stationed in Kimpo Circa 1950. Not sure if it is DPRKAF or if it is PLAAF.

I have heard that Russia loaned some of it's pilots to the PLA and DPRK to fly in MiG-15's. According to a documentary, the USAF pilots could tell the diffrence in flying skill. Of course, this is all subject to conjecture.

As far as what the Chinese used, they used WW2 Vintage rifles, SMG's and LMG's with some of the newer Russian equipment and vehicles. As well as the weapons they themselves used in WW2.

The Chinese 'Victory' is a bit disputed. Technicaly speaking, the war has not even ended yet, so no-one won. Which is why there is still a North and South Korea instead of a Chinese Peninsula or Communist Korea. However, the Chinese definately hit our nerve when it came to the conflict. We were woefuly unprepared for this kind of combat.

By the way, I happen to enjoy M.A.S.H. One of my faveorite episodes was Rainbow Bridge, when Hawkeye, B.J and Burns had to help the Chinese soliders? I just love that bit where Burns pulls out the little peashooter and the PLA officer goes "What the hell is that?!" then laughs as he holds the little gun....ah...good times.

[xihaoli]

The theory of soviet airforce pilots flying mig-15's is more of a myth then fact. The only two bases that many pilots make of this assumption was that:

A) Some pilots showed signifigently more experience then others

B) The pilots "alledgely" saw caucasion features on the enamy pilots.

Of these two points you can see simply how rediculous point B is. Could it be possible that american pilots, when engaged in a duel of life and death, have the curiosity to peak at the cockpit of their opponets by closing in with <50m to the enemy plane and then taking a nice long look at his advasary? I personally don't think so. The soviets never actually admited to this theory and there were chinese pilots that rounded up more then five kills of american aircraft.

[simonov]

Weel actually the Sovyet involved the. Their pilot. Under the Commander Ivan Kozhnezhdub. Sovyet top ace is Yevgeni Pepelyev,23 kills, PVa is Wang Hai, 9 kills and NK get 5 kills. All Sovyet pilot fly the NK designation MiG-15. They get order if they get catch they have to admitted as Chinese soldier from Xinjiang. They get instructed to speak Korean or Chinese in the air, but later they keep use their Russian lnguange. Some US pilot hear a russian comm in the air. no one Russian get catch or POW

[Red Guard]

Weel actually the Sovyet involved the. Their pilot. Under the Commander Ivan Kozhnezhdub. Sovyet top ace is Yevgeni Pepelyev,23 kills, PVa is Wang Hai, 9 kills and NK get 5 kills. All Sovyet pilot fly the NK designation MiG-15. They get order if they get catch they have to admitted as Chinese soldier from Xinjiang. They get instructed to speak Korean or Chinese in the air, but later they keep use their Russian lnguange. Some US pilot hear a russian comm in the air. no one Russian get catch or POW

Soviet Hero Kozhenzdub was commanding his wing over my home city, hehehe, and soviet pilots DID fly in korea.

[Kampfwagen]

The soviets never actually admited to this theory

One thing I know about the Soviets is that they dont admit to alot of things, and still havent. It took them years to admit to the accidental sinking of the Kursk, even longer to admit about the Polish offical they murdered and even longer to admit a possible incident where they almost accidently lost controll of a nuclear missile aimed at the U.S. Who knows what secrets from the Soviet era the Russians have yet to admit to. Or what the U.S has yet to admit to from the Cold War.

And I remember that in the same documentary, they actualy interviewed a Soviet pilot that flew during the war.

[chicket9]

Getting back to the Chinese army...

did PVA eventually use armoured equipment? I heard that later on in the war, the PVA realized its lack of firepower, so set out in buying 20 divisions worth of Soviet equipment. In addition, did PVA eventually use T-34s in the Korean Penninsula? I know that North Korea had T-34s.

Did PVA also employ the use of captured US and Japanese vehicles acquired since 1945 in Korea?

[Kampfwagen]

The North Koreans did in fact gain around 150 T-34/85 Tanks, thanks to 'Uncle Stalin' who also gave SU-76 SPG's (self propelled guns). The Chinese also had T-34 tanks (Not sure if they were 85's or an older version) and both had BA-64 armored cars. However, both sides rarely used them. T-34 tanks, despite their thick armor and powerful guns, were also known for their mechanical unreliability, a side effect of unskilled labor involved in military mass production. Many of the Chinese and North Koreans did not have the technical skill to repair the tanks, and typicaly just left them whenever and wherever they broke down and stuck to infantry attacks.

[Kampfwagen]

The M-14 was adopted in 1956-7, a good three or four years after the end of Korea. However, the M-14's prototype was first made in 1944 and was basicaly an M1 Rifle with a BAR Magazine attached.

However, there was an 'assault rifle' used by Allied forces in Korea: The M2 Rifle. This was a select fire modification of the M1 Carbine that came in the same ammunition type that the original M1 and M1A1 did. However, it lacked the range of most traditional rifles and thus was not considered a real assault rifle (However assinine a classification that is, it's the offical one). Other than that, it was your basic low powered, short ranged M1 Carbine. I'd prefer Uncle Garand if you ask me.

[ahho]

commonwealth was still using enfield, which is a pretty good gun. One thing i don't understand, there were a documentary in CBC and a veteran said that "we have to fire one bloody bullet at a time, while the chinese are using machine gun spraying". He said that happened at a hill where the last battle was fought.

Were there a lot of machine gun (bren look alike) used by the chinese during the war???

[simonov]

May be they used PD (Pulemyot Degtyarev). If they got Bren, must be from the Nationalist weapon who get during the Japanese and civil war

[Kampfwagen]

The 'Bren Look-Alike' might be the Type 96 LMG used by the Japanese during WW2. From a distance, they look very similar.

http://www.wlhoward.com/cfd5e130.jpg
Type 96 LMG

http://www.army.lt/guns/gallery/B27.jpg
Bren

[isthvan]

commonwealth was still using enfield, which is a pretty good gun. One thing i don't understand, there were a documentary in CBC and a veteran said that "we have to fire one bloody bullet at a time, while the chinese are using machine gun spraying". He said that happened at a hill where the last battle was fought.

Were there a lot of machine gun (bren look alike) used by the chinese during the war???

It is more probably that he was talking about PPSch-41 Shpagin submachine gun whit 71 rounds in drum magazine… Chinese troops using Shpagin’s had great advantage in firepower compared to UN troops…

[Obcession]

Not necessarily. The PPsH 41 fires rounds extremely fast, yes. But the rounds loses energy very quickly, not to mention the inaccuracy of the PPsH, compared to other SMG's. You'll have to be very close range to have a firepower advantage with PPsH. The Lee Enfield was a good gun, but for longer ranges. As for one bullet at a time... The Brits and Canadians (I do believe that veteran was a Canadian?) Had a lot more heavy small arms than the PVA, and a lot more bullets to spend. That's because most of the weapons that China had at the beginning of the war (Most probably, the veteran was referring to the beginning of the war, when China was overwhelming and encircling enemy troops by the thousands, and thus creating a situation where he was being pinned down so badly) were captured equipment from the KMT and Japanese, and that ammunition was short because it had to be captured.

[isthvan]

Not necessarily. The PPsH 41 fires rounds extremely fast, yes. But the rounds loses energy very quickly, not to mention the inaccuracy of the PPsH, compared to other SMG's. You'll have to be very close range to have a firepower advantage with PPsH. The Lee Enfield was a good gun, but for longer ranges. As for one bullet at a time... The Brits and Canadians (I do believe that veteran was a Canadian?) Had a lot more heavy small arms than the PVA, and a lot more bullets to spend. That's because most of the weapons that China had at the beginning of the war (Most probably, the veteran was referring to the beginning of the war, when China was overwhelming and encircling enemy troops by the thousands, and thus creating a situation where he was being pinned down so badly) were captured equipment from the KMT and Japanese, and that ammunition was short because it had to be captured.

I guess that it all depend on year we are talking about… It is joust that I can not imagine any other weapon used by Chinese troops that could give that kind of firepower advantage over UN troops…
Shpagin proved him self on ww2 eastern front and Wermacht even considered making drum magazine for MP40 SMG… After ww2 Soviets delivered big quantities of Shpagin's to it allies including China…

[Kampfwagen]

The Chinese did use PPsH41's, but there is a big diffrence in the look of a PPsH41 to that of a Bren. The PPsH is a 'typical' rifle design with a large drum protruding out from the bottom and a threaded barrel (Forgive me if this is the incorrect term. It has alot of holes in the barrel for the ventalation of heat and gasses). This is alot diffrent looking than the Bren, which most noticeable of it's features is the large Banana-Style clip, bipod and a barrel which terminates in a cone-shape. (I dont know what the offical word is, but I am thinking Compensator.)

So I personaly beleve that it was either a captured Type 96, or a ex-nationalist Bren.

[isthvan]

The Chinese did use PPsH41's, but there is a big diffrence in the look of a PPsH41 to that of a Bren. The PPsH is a 'typical' rifle design with a large drum protruding out from the bottom and a threaded barrel (Forgive me if this is the incorrect term. It has alot of holes in the barrel for the ventalation of heat and gasses). This is alot diffrent looking than the Bren, which most noticeable of it's features is the large Banana-Style clip, bipod and a barrel which terminates in a cone-shape. (I dont know what the offical word is, but I am thinking Compensator.)

So I personaly beleve that it was either a captured Type 96, or a ex-nationalist Bren.

Kampfwagen I know how Shpagin looks and how Bren looks…
I joust have hard time believing that Chinese troops used squad machine guns in so superior numbers compared to commonwealth troops… UN troops used Enfield but they also had Brens and BARs in every squad…
So I really can’t understand what could give Chinese troops so much advantage in firepower …

It would be nice if ahho could provide additional information on this subject…

[ahho]

hmm it was a long time ago a documentary that i watch in CBC, i totally forget the exact location that they fought. Also i need to correct a mistake that i made, it wasn't the last battle for canada to fight in Korea, but i am pretty sure it was a defense against the chinese (probably a few battle before the last one)

[Kampfwagen]

I have no doubt you know the diffrence between a Shpagin anda Bren, considering the distinct diffrences in design. However, it was more to point out how difficult it would be to get a Bren and a Shpagin mixed up.

And it does not seem impossible to me that the Chinese would use a Type 96 or Bren, and more than likely it was a numerical superiority and a difference in tactics. U.S Soliders, armed with BAR's and belt-fed Browning .30 Calliber M1919 MG's, still felt overwhelmed in the face of the massive numbers of Chinese troops that surged to their positions. Maybe what the vet was refering to was a personal experence as a rifleman, rather than a generalization on the Canadians as a whole.

[ahho]

well i was not generalizing the canadians, i was just using it to see if you guys watched the documentary