Chinese casualties during the Korean War

method_man

Just Hatched
Registered Member
It seems as though everyones estimate about the Chinese casualties during the Korean war is different. Chinese sources say 450000 casualties (100000 KIA)
while some western sources suggest 600000 to One million Chinese casualties.

I think one million is an overstatement, especially since the chinese army only barely had a million soldiers serving in korea, but a lot of Western sources are claiming this. What do you think is the most reliable source?
 

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Given that Americans were retreating from PVA invasion into North Korea at the time, it is difficult and understandable for the Americans to accurate validate the amount of confirmed killed on the battlefield given they were on the run and could not return back to enemy captured territory to conduct a thorough body count.
 

PrOeLiTeZ

Junior Member
Registered Member
Western sources mix up Korean and Chinese so the numbers seem to be larger then what was stated. I doubt it would be 1 million that would mean most of its ground forces would be in Korea. And hardly any in mainland.
 

articblast

Just Hatched
Registered Member
My father fought in the Korean war and he told me that the Kill ratio was about ten to one. I dont know if he was counting the NKA though.
 

Troika

Junior Member
Frankly, anecdoctal evidence of one soldier is good for... zip.

I mean, let's pass a simple litmus test. Total allied casualties around half a million. Five million communist troops casualties?

I don't think so.

Reminds me of how if you tally up the killcount of the Red Army veterans in the war against faschists (all respect to them), you end up killing Germany... several times over.

EDIT: Let me expand on this and tell you exactly why this is not useful a statement. Suppose your father was telling the exact and literal truth, there are several readings of the line.

1) His unit achieved that kill ratio in the most memorable battle (plausible esp. in some of the defensive actions with full air and arty support)
2) His unit (going from platoon all the way to RCT) achieved that kill ratio
3) The units that he is a personal witness to (his own unit plus neighbouring units) achieved that kill ratio
4) The Americans achieved that kill ratio (implausible, that pretty much requires the Americans to have been singlehandedly responsible for the high-end communist casualty estimate, US forces were dominant, but not that dominant)
5) The Allies achieved that kill ratio (impossible)
 
Last edited:

articblast

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Frankly, anecdoctal evidence of one soldier is good for... zip.

I mean, let's pass a simple litmus test. Total allied casualties around half a million. Five million communist troops casualties?

I don't think so.

Reminds me of how if you tally up the killcount of the Red Army veterans in the war against faschists (all respect to them), you end up killing Germany... several times over.

EDIT: Let me expand on this and tell you exactly why this is not useful a statement. Suppose your father was telling the exact and literal truth, there are several readings of the line.

1) His unit achieved that kill ratio in the most memorable battle (plausible esp. in some of the defensive actions with full air and arty support)
2) His unit (going from platoon all the way to RCT) achieved that kill ratio
3) The units that he is a personal witness to (his own unit plus neighbouring units) achieved that kill ratio
4) The Americans achieved that kill ratio (implausible, that pretty much requires the Americans to have been singlehandedly responsible for the high-end communist casualty estimate, US forces were dominant, but not that dominant)
5) The Allies achieved that kill ratio (impossible)

1)Except my father was in the Air Force Hq. Hes said that was the reports that was coming in.
2)I ment Air support and artillery included.

3)I ment all U.N forces.

4) How is it impossiable when wave attacks on postions protect with landmines,air support and artillery.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Reports are reports. In the Vietnam War there were many similar reports where GIs thought they killed something, or a lot of things in firefights and turned out nothing at all when the day break came. Of course in Iraq, its a lot stricter now; they take digital photos of the bodies. Why do you think they became that strict when it comes to verification now?

Most of these battles happen at night, which makes it very difficult to see or even account of the enemy, much less in a retreating stage.

In the Korean War, there are many questions with the logistics and transportation as to even how the Communists are able to mobilize even just a million men.
 

LostWraith

New Member
1)Except my father was in the Air Force Hq. Hes said that was the reports that was coming in.
2)I ment Air support and artillery included.

3)I ment all U.N forces.

4) How is it impossiable when wave attacks on postions protect with landmines,air support and artillery.

Because human waves never occured in significant quantities and it was only a combat psychological effect on the terrified defending soldiers.
 

Troika

Junior Member
1)Except my father was in the Air Force Hq. Hes said that was the reports that was coming in.
2)I ment Air support and artillery included.

3)I ment all U.N forces.

4) How is it impossiable when wave attacks on postions protect with landmines,air support and artillery.

1) What's AF HQ doing with casualty reports of the army? What's his position? Did he serve throughout the entire war? Was it battle report from one engagement? He make a clear compilation of all battle statistics from all engagemetns in all areas?

2) Duh. I wasn't expecting soldiers to go 'no, wait, that one didn't die from machine gun fire from my platoon, that one done got hit by a long tom shell! Do you have any idea how people estimate exchange rates?

3) Then you are wrong.

4) Because the human wave attack is a myth. That sort of overwhelming attacks happened at selected points. And why it's impossible? This is the part where 'research' comes in. There were never more than 800,000 CPV troops in Korea... 5 million means they are replaced more than six times. The absolute HIGHEST estimate was 2 million casualties. 40% of the figure derived if we take all of your assumptions literally.
 
Last edited:
Top